Mayflower District Court
#tdark99-v-zrihem-et-al
This is the start of #tdark99-v-zrihem-et-al channel.
Kezzera 2024-09-08 02:55 a.m. CASE INFORMATION**
IN THE MAYFLOWER DISTRICT COURT FOR CLARK COUNTY
---
TDark99 v. zrihem, turbanwarfare
Trial Type: Civil
Judge Assigned: Judge AlbertWellesley - Courtroom 101
Complaint Attached: Complaint Link
---
UPCOMING COURT DATES
```
...
---
---
```
...
Comments
1Labels
CivilKezzera 2024-09-08 02:57 a.m.@DauuX I have received your Notice of Appearance. Please make sure you respond here
Kezzera
DauuX 2024-09-08 04:15 a.m.
Hello
DauuX 2024-09-08 04:39 a.m.@Kezzera Can you or the clerk summon/add defendants
DauuX 2024-09-08 04:39 a.m.
add as in add to this channe;
DauuX 2024-09-08 04:39 a.m.
channel*
Kezzera 2024-09-08 04:50 a.m.
I'll have it sorted when I am available the next day
Kezzera 2024-09-08 04:51 a.m.
I will consider that it was filed on the day this was submitted
DauuX 2024-09-09 07:59 a.m.@Kezzera
DauuXDauuX 2024-09-09 04:17 p.m.@capsulesalesman
Kezzera 2024-09-09 04:26 p.m.
hi, yes one second
Kezzera 2024-09-09 07:05 p.m.
Summons issued
DauuXKezzera 2024-09-09 07:06 p.m.
he's with the supreme court
Kezzera 2024-09-09 07:06 p.m.@DauuX Is your client here
Kezzera 2024-09-09 07:07 p.m.
and I've added Mr. Singhski to the case as he's given a NOA, and it seems the state has a vested interest in this case
Kezzera 2024-09-09 07:07 p.m.
I will expect Mr. Singhski to make the appropriate representation and notices on this case's record to confirm that interest
KezzeraDauuX 2024-09-10 04:34 a.m.
Yes
Kezzera 2024-09-10 10:25 a.m.@Typical added
Kezzera 2024-09-10 10:25 a.m.@singhski I will expect you to confirm the states interest when you're on, thanks
Kezzera 2024-09-10 10:39 a.m.@Typical try now
Typical 2024-09-10 10:39 a.m.
Alright, thanks.
Kezzera
singhski 2024-09-10 11:33 a.m.
Pursuant to 5 M.S.C § 3202.4, we are intervening in this case.
singhski 2024-09-10 11:35 a.m.
Also, the opposing counsel have already recognised this because they submitted their claim to the DoJ pursuant to 5 M.S.C § 3202.1
singhskiAlso, the opposing counsel have already recognised this because they submitted their claim to the DoJ pursuant to 5 M.S.C § 3202.1
DauuX 2024-09-10 11:54 a.m.
Well we were required to submit it to you anyway
DauuX 2024-09-10 11:54 a.m.
That doesn't mean we agree the State has an interest in protecting this type of conduct
DauuXThat doesn't mean we agree the State has an interest in protecting this type of conduct
singhski 2024-09-10 12:01 p.m.
That doesn't matter, the State dictates whether it has interest in protecting the conduct of it's employees.
DauuXWell we were required to submit it to you anyway
singhski 2024-09-10 12:03 p.m.
Not for all types of claims
DauuX 2024-09-10 12:03 p.m.
For this one, we were
singhski 2024-09-10 12:03 p.m.
Claims specifically against employees of the government must go through the DoJ
singhskiClaims specifically against employees of the government must go through the DoJ
singhski 2024-09-10 12:03 p.m.
You have expressed that this is against employees of the government
DauuX 2024-09-10 12:04 p.m.
So I don't see why you're trying to lecture someone who already knows this
DauuX 2024-09-10 12:04 p.m.
I know who the suit is against
singhski 2024-09-10 12:04 p.m.
Ok, so our intervention goes without contest @Kezzera
DauuX 2024-09-10 12:04 p.m.
Well we still haven't heard what the interest is
singhski 2024-09-10 12:04 p.m.
You have.
singhski 2024-09-10 12:06 p.m.
5 M.S.C § 3202.4, the "Solicitor General may intervene with the government as a defendant in cases against one's individual capacity if they were in fact serving in an official capacity"
singhskiPursuant to 5 M.S.C § 3202.4, we are intervening in this case.
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:18 p.m.
Noted
DauuXWell we still haven't heard what the interest is
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:21 p.m.
This is a statutory right. I may ask the state to kindly provide their reasons if it becomes a hotly contested issue - I believe you aren't contesting so I won't likely press on this issue further
KezzeraNoted
singhski 2024-09-10 01:24 p.m.
Count three must also be dismissed
singhski 2024-09-10 01:24 p.m.
It was not brought to us for arbitration
singhskiCount three must also be dismissed
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:25 p.m.
Libel is not an official capacity tort..
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:26 p.m.
We're not seeking damages against the State
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:27 p.m.
And if you want to say that Defendant zrihem calling Plaintiff an "inbred specimen" is an official capacity act, well that'd be something
DauuXLibel is not an official capacity tort..
singhski 2024-09-10 01:27 p.m.
The government is still a defendant because they were in fact serving in an official capacity albeit that the claim derived from their individual capacity
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:27 p.m.
A defendant to some torts, yes, not all
singhski 2024-09-10 01:27 p.m.
Announcing and writing reasons for discharge all happen in the official capacity
singhski 2024-09-10 01:28 p.m.
You’re not suing him for calling the Plaintiff an “inbred species”
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:28 p.m.
I would need such requests in writing Mr Singhski
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:28 p.m.
I do apologise if it is a burden to
singhski 2024-09-10 01:28 p.m.
The same standard is applied as this Court has applied in regards to count one
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:29 p.m.
unless the reasons are like, one or two sentences long
KezzeraI would need such requests in writing Mr Singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 01:29 p.m.
You don’t, the Court must deny a claim that did not go through the DoJ
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:29 p.m.
Don't be unreasonable
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:29 p.m.
I'll look at count three, one second
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:30 p.m.
You're expecting Plaintiff to go to and fro to the DoJ to seek leave to sue for every act that after the arbitration?
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:30 p.m.
These actions were a result of it
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:30 p.m.
Not a cause of it
singhski 2024-09-10 01:30 p.m.
That’s not what you alleged in your complaint
singhski 2024-09-10 01:30 p.m.
and yea we do
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:31 p.m.
You're also defending someone who willingly retaliated against my client
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:31 p.m.
And you know damn well about it
singhski 2024-09-10 01:31 p.m.
You’re not making any legal arguments here.
singhski 2024-09-10 01:31 p.m.
Quit speaking to me and talk to the Judge.
singhski 2024-09-10 01:32 p.m.
Anyways @Kezzera as I said this is a statutory right and does not warrant a formal motion to dismiss.
singhski 2024-09-10 01:33 p.m.
The statutory language is clear in that each tort alleged is separate and must go through the DOJ and the system it has put in place to arbitrate those claims.
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:34 p.m.
Well we can just go back to the DOJ and get leave if needs be
singhski 2024-09-10 01:35 p.m.
Specifically 5 M.S.C § 3203.1
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:40 p.m.
Is it only just count three that's not gone through arbitration?(edited)
DauuXWell we can just go back to the DOJ and get leave if needs be
singhski 2024-09-10 01:40 p.m.
It should be dismissed with prejudice as a sanction for wasting the Courts time when you were aware of the statutory requirement of arbitration before filing with the Court.
KezzeraIs it only just count three that's not gone through arbitration?(edited)
singhski 2024-09-10 01:41 p.m.
Yes, unless he has changed what they allege
singhski 2024-09-10 01:41 p.m.
Which I’m going to check
singhskiIt should be dismissed with prejudice as a sanction for wasting the Courts time when you were aware of the statutory requirement of arbitration before filing with the Court.
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:41 p.m.
Yeah no, that's hardly how it works
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:41 p.m.
No, he can't change the record - we have the original file as given to us on the date of submission
KezzeraNo, he can't change the record - we have the original file as given to us on the date of submission
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:41 p.m.
He means the original complaint that was provided to them
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:41 p.m.
Ah right
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:42 p.m.
This one was expanded based on the illegal conduct that happened through and after the arbitration
singhski 2024-09-10 01:42 p.m.
No your honour, the complaint brought to us for arbitration contrasts with the complaint filed with the Court
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:42 p.m.
because I do see that you went through the arbitration process - well the plaintiff real did - yes you did allege that mr Dauu
singhskiNo your honour, the complaint brought to us for arbitration contrasts with the complaint filed with the Court
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:42 p.m.
How far?
KezzeraHow far?
singhski 2024-09-10 01:42 p.m.
You can have a look for yourself
KezzeraHow far?
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:42 p.m.
It includes everything past the arbitration
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:43 p.m.
I obviously couldn't have included it prior to it
singhski 2024-09-10 01:43 p.m.
DauuXI obviously couldn't have included it prior to it
singhski 2024-09-10 01:43 p.m.
You need to arbitrate the claims again if they are different
singhski 2024-09-10 01:43 p.m.
Essentially your honour, we arbitrated one thing and are now litigating another
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:43 p.m.
The torts are the same other than libel I think
singhskiYou can have a look for yourself
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:44 p.m.
I can't seem to access the complaint filed
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:44 p.m.
The thing that was arbitrated sparked further misconduct and I don't think it was the intent of the statute to force us to go back in an endless loop of arbitrating
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:44 p.m.
(the one through the DOJ)
Kezzera(the one through the DOJ)
singhski 2024-09-10 01:45 p.m.
That’s weird, I can see it fine.
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:45 p.m.
Could you post it here
singhski 2024-09-10 01:45 p.m.
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:46 p.m.
One second
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:46 p.m.
I'm gonna do something to fix it on my end
singhski 2024-09-10 02:43 p.m.@Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 04:20 p.m.
What a weird situation, thanks for being patient
Kezzera 2024-09-10 04:20 p.m.
I will look at this now
singhskiKezzera 2024-09-10 04:21 p.m.
So this was intended for the court?
Kezzera 2024-09-10 04:21 p.m.
and not for the arbitration?
Kezzera 2024-09-10 04:21 p.m.
And this is what was sent to you after the arbitration process, but the one on file is very different
Kezzera 2024-09-10 04:21 p.m.
is that correct?
Kezzera 2024-09-10 04:21 p.m.@singhski
KezzeraSo this was intended for the court?
DauuX 2024-09-10 04:24 p.m.
this was the original claim submitted for the arbitration, styled in the form of a CC so I wouldn't have to rewrite it if DOJ outright denied
DauuX 2024-09-10 04:24 p.m.
It saves time to just put it in that format and submit it as is, but the arbitration revealed some more misconduct which is why the current complaint is different
singhskiDauuX 2024-09-10 04:25 p.m.
as you can read on this file, it was signed Sept 3rd, arbitration started on the 4th
Kezzera 2024-09-10 04:48 p.m.
ah yeah, silly me
KezzeraSo this was intended for the court?
singhski 2024-09-10 04:58 p.m.
This was intended for arbitration, the issue is, what is intended for arbitration---in good faith--- is supposed to be intended for both arbitration and the Court.
singhski 2024-09-10 04:59 p.m.
You can't just add claims whenever you so please and also change what you are alleging for the other claims
singhski 2024-09-10 04:59 p.m.
That negates the whole process of arbitration and its intentions
singhski 2024-09-10 05:00 p.m.
If you want me to go into depth about how it disregards the arbitration process, I'll be happy to do so
singhski 2024-09-10 05:00 p.m.
Though I believe it is extremely straightforward.
DauuX 2024-09-10 05:01 p.m.
We didn't just "add claims"
DauuX 2024-09-10 05:01 p.m.
Those claims didn't exist before the arbitration
DauuXThose claims didn't exist before the arbitration
singhski 2024-09-10 05:02 p.m.
Regardless, they are against an employee of the government and must be arbitrated.
DauuX 2024-09-10 05:03 p.m.
The Department of Justice has made it abudantly clear that it won't grant all the relief sought, as in their understanding, Plaintiff was not an employee
DauuX 2024-09-10 05:03 p.m.
And we're unwilling to settle unless all of it is granted
DauuX 2024-09-10 05:05 p.m.
Even if arbitration on the new counts led to something--the whole arbitration would be irrelevant, as we want Plaintiff reinstated and the DOJ said no
DauuX 2024-09-10 05:07 p.m.
That's nothing but a denial of the claim
DauuXEven if arbitration on the new counts led to something--the whole arbitration would be irrelevant, as we want Plaintiff reinstated and the DOJ said no
singhski 2024-09-10 05:16 p.m.
Libel specifically needs to be arbitrated
singhskiLibel specifically needs to be arbitrated
DauuX 2024-09-10 05:17 p.m.
No, because the DOJ refused to meet our demands
DauuX 2024-09-10 05:17 p.m.
And DOJ can either accept the claim, deny it or mediate it
DauuX 2024-09-10 05:17 p.m.
They denied it
DauuXNo, because the DOJ refused to meet our demands
singhski 2024-09-10 05:59 p.m.
Thats not how it works 
singhski 2024-09-10 05:59 p.m.
“no the DOJ refused our other demands we aren’t going to arbitrate our new ones”
singhski 2024-09-10 06:00 p.m.
Anyways stop talking to me. Talk to the Judge.
singhski 2024-09-10 06:01 p.m.
The demands are separate, we denied your demands for the other three counts
singhskiThats not how it works
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:05 p.m.
please do not edit messages!
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:07 p.m.
anyway ya no point discussing anything with you
singhski 2024-09-10 06:07 p.m.@DauuX would you rather refile the entire case or dismiss the libel claim with prejudice?
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:07 p.m.
Not up to you
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:07 p.m.
And it doesnt satisfy prejudice
DauuXanyway ya no point discussing anything with you
singhski 2024-09-10 06:07 p.m.
Because you can only come up with straw mans
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:07 p.m.
Shh
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:07 p.m.
Talk to the judge, not me
DauuXAnd it doesnt satisfy prejudice
singhski 2024-09-10 06:08 p.m.
Yes it does, wasting the Courts time can result in sanctions.
singhski 2024-09-10 06:08 p.m.@Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:49 p.m.
I do not find it likely that because the other 3 claims which were arbitrated on is sufficient grounds for the whole action to proceed (whole includes Libel)(edited)
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:49 p.m.
I am willing to proceed with the arbitrated claims, it went through the process
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:49 p.m.
Those that aren't you will need to deal with the DOJ
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:51 p.m.
If there's a clear demonstration that the DOJ is unwilling to front liability for any of these claims and any future claims thereafter OR i.e. all claims, then I would say that it's fine to proceed on the whole action(edited)
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:52 p.m.
The contents of your libel claim do include stuff related to the original matter which was for arbitration
KezzeraThe contents of your libel claim do include stuff related to the original matter which was for arbitration
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:52 p.m.
intended for*
KezzeraThose that aren't you will need to deal with the DOJ
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:52 p.m.
The DOJ has said that they won't reinstate Plaintiff (which is part of our sought relief originally), which is why they refused to settle in the first place
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:52 p.m.
I can bring back the whole case with libel, but they won't reinstate Plaintiff anyway
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:53 p.m.
Problem is I cannot see that, I wish I could
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:53 p.m.
They've closed the door already on one of the stipulations, and absent one is absent all
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:53 p.m.
The transcript is absolutely not available for me to access
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:53 p.m.
Okay one second
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:53 p.m.
Thank you
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:53 p.m.
I can make a more concrete resolution with it
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:53 p.m.
These transcripts are
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:53 p.m.
wacky
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:53 p.m.
As long as it has the contents of the arbitration, I can work with it
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:54 p.m. 
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:55 p.m.
alternatively maybe this file works...?
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:55 p.m.
it won't have the profile pictures and images
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:55 p.m.
Wait, no
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:56 p.m.Ticket Tool - Ticketing without clutter - The #1 Discord support bot 
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:56 p.m.
does this work for you
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:56 p.m.
perfect, thanks
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:57 p.m.
I guess they work for some time
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:57 p.m.
no it's just the one on the document takes me to a broken link somehow
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:57 p.m.
im on a different device at the moment
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:57 p.m.
Ah
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:57 p.m.
Well the one on the document was acquired the same way
Kezzera 2024-09-10 07:01 p.m.
yeah, ill blame it on the device
singhski 2024-09-11 02:13 a.m.@Kezzera The third claim was not processed through the DOJ. There is not more to it.
singhski 2024-09-11 02:16 a.m.
The relief for libel does not involve reinstatement
singhski 2024-09-11 02:17 a.m.
I’m not sure why this needs further elaboration—if it is not dismissed it’s a blatant misapplication of the law
DauuX 2024-09-11 02:36 a.m.
The whole claim invovles reinstatement. The arbitration is of a claim, not of single, individual causes of action
DauuX 2024-09-11 02:36 a.m.
And if it has been decided that relief will not be granted, even slightly, then the claim was denied
DauuX 2024-09-11 02:37 a.m.
The point of statute isn't to force us to waste even more time by submitting a claim that we already know won't be granted
DauuXAnd if it has been decided that relief will not be granted, even slightly, then the claim was denied
DauuX 2024-09-11 02:42 a.m.
Even slightly meaning in part
DauuX 2024-09-11 05:41 a.m.@Kezzera We move for a default judgement pursuant to Mayfl. R. Civ. P. 37
DauuXThe whole claim invovles reinstatement. The arbitration is of a claim, not of single, individual causes of action
singhski 2024-09-11 11:19 a.m.
Reinstatement isn't a valid form of relief for negligence.
singhski 2024-09-11 11:20 a.m.
*libel
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:21 a.m.
Nobody said it was
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:21 a.m.
hi, sorry
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:21 a.m.
just working on another case let me get back to this
singhskiThe relief for libel does not involve reinstatement
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:22 a.m.
No it doesn't, it'd be an inappropriate relief and I think that's commonly held (unless there's a good reason to somehow consider it, then it may be considered as an equitable issue potentially, although I don't think that's the case)
DauuXThe whole claim invovles reinstatement. The arbitration is of a claim, not of single, individual causes of action
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:22 a.m.
It does not deter the relief sought however - one claim cannot somehow invalidate the relief overall requested
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:22 a.m.
other grounds do exist, which is to be assessed anyway
KezzeraNo it doesn't, it'd be an inappropriate relief and I think that's commonly held (unless there's a good reason to somehow consider it, then it may be considered as an equitable issu...
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:23 a.m.
And nobody is disagreeing with that
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:23 a.m.
I know
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:23 a.m.
I was just responding
KezzeraIt does not deter the relief sought however - one claim cannot somehow invalidate the relief overall requested
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:23 a.m.
My point is that the DOJ refused to accept one of the provisions we asked for, and thus the whole claim
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:24 a.m.
There isn't a separate claim for all the torts and a separate one for libel
DauuXKezzera 2024-09-11 11:24 a.m.
37b was it?
Kezzera37b was it?
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:26 a.m.
Yes, 37(b)
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:26 a.m.
Would you like the default motion in writing?
KezzeraNo it doesn't, it'd be an inappropriate relief and I think that's commonly held (unless there's a good reason to somehow consider it, then it may be considered as an equitable issu...
singhski 2024-09-11 11:27 a.m.
Can we have your judgement in regards to the dismissal of count three?
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:27 a.m.
Well yes if the deadline was not met Dauu, I issued it yesterday according to my clock so they're in time
singhskiCan we have your judgement in regards to the dismissal of count three?
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:27 a.m.
It'd have to be in writing
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:28 a.m.
Or you both have to work out whether to take it to arbitration, and only on count 3
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:28 a.m.
The remainders have already been arbitrated
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:28 a.m.
I can stay the whole action until count 3 is resolved
KezzeraIt'd have to be in writing
singhski 2024-09-11 11:28 a.m.
The arbitration statutes mandate count three to be arbitrated
KezzeraWell yes if the deadline was not met Dauu, I issued it yesterday according to my clock so they're in time
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:28 a.m.
The summons says they have until September 11th, 2.40 AM UTC-7
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:28 a.m.
oh fucking crap
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:29 a.m.
did I miscount the time
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:29 a.m.
Which was about 6 hours ago
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:29 a.m.
hold on, let me double check
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:30 a.m.
yes okay, i thought i fucked up something
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:30 a.m.
sorry my bad
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:30 a.m.
anyway
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:30 a.m.
I mean if that's the case (pretty sure it is), we'd have to hold off action for count three
DauuXMy point is that the DOJ refused to accept one of the provisions we asked for, and thus the whole claim
singhski 2024-09-11 11:30 a.m.
That's really not how it works unless your only request for relief was reinstatement.
singhski 2024-09-11 11:30 a.m.
wHICH IT WASN;T
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:30 a.m.
but the remainders are still actionable here(edited)
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:31 a.m.
Is there anything to suggest that if the remedies sought here were different to the ones in arbitration the whole action has to go back? Pretty sure not
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:32 a.m.
i'm just going to double check..
singhski 2024-09-11 11:33 a.m.
Yes, there are two more remedies being sought.
singhski 2024-09-11 11:34 a.m.
Namely "Declaratory judgement stating that Defendant zrihem’s action of blacklisting Plaintiff was
an act of retaliation unsupported by law, which transgressed Plaintiff’s rights;" (¶ 49d)
an act of retaliation unsupported by law, which transgressed Plaintiff’s rights;" (¶ 49d)
singhski 2024-09-11 11:34 a.m.
"A letter of apology written and signed by Defendant zrihem, of no less than 200 words,
published in the Mayflower National Guard’s public announcements channel, wherein
Defendant zrihem will take blame and apologise for his defamatory and unlawful
conduct, which shall not be generated by artificial intelligence; which shall be a genuine
expression of apology. The letter ought not to be deleted, removed, or otherwise
modified;" (¶ 49e)
published in the Mayflower National Guard’s public announcements channel, wherein
Defendant zrihem will take blame and apologise for his defamatory and unlawful
conduct, which shall not be generated by artificial intelligence; which shall be a genuine
expression of apology. The letter ought not to be deleted, removed, or otherwise
modified;" (¶ 49e)
singhski 2024-09-11 11:35 a.m.
Arbitration is used to settle a dispute--there are new disputes here.
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:35 a.m.
I'm more comfortable for count three to go back to arbitration on the basis it has, once again, alleged the defendants on qualifying issues for arbitration. However this will have to be timely
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:36 a.m.
What about the remaining claims @singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:36 a.m.
See above
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:36 a.m.
You're asking for the whole thing to be stayed pending arbitration outcome?
singhski 2024-09-11 11:36 a.m.
The claims themselves aren't being arbitrated, rather the remedies being sought from them
singhski 2024-09-11 11:36 a.m.
Yes
singhskiThe claims themselves aren't being arbitrated, rather the remedies being sought from them
singhski 2024-09-11 11:37 a.m.
*Rather the remedies AND the claims simultaneously
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:37 a.m.
Your Honour
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:37 a.m.
I'm not sure as to whether the remedies discussion qualify for arbitration, the claims that ask for the remedies would be more appropriate(edited)
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:37 a.m.
Yes
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:37 a.m.
Do we agree that a claim is up for arbitration, and not separate causes of action?
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:38 a.m.
I.e., you don't arbitrate separate causes but the whole claim which may include more than one cause
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:38 a.m.
The thing is most of your causes of action were dealt with earlier in arbitration
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:38 a.m.
It can be unduly delaying the action if the whole claim were halted for now
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:38 a.m.
I'd like to make my reasoning clearer for the Court
DauuXDo we agree that a claim is up for arbitration, and not separate causes of action?
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:39 a.m.
Are we in agreement over this though?
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:39 a.m.
I'm still looking(edited)
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:39 a.m.
(I assume you both are in dispute to that still)
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:39 a.m.
(If you aren't then you don't need my input on that)
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:39 a.m.@singhski Is a claim arbitrated or are separate causes of action treated individually?
KezzeraIt can be unduly delaying the action if the whole claim were halted for now
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:40 a.m.
And I'd say it is undue delay, as throwing out libel doesn't change the fact that defendant did not respond to other causes, meaning default is proper for the rest
singhski*Rather the remedies AND the claims simultaneously
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:41 a.m.
Well this works
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:41 a.m.
Working from this angle, Your Honour
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:41 a.m.
A relief we've been requesting since the beginning was Plaintiff's reinstatement, and the DOJ refused to grant this
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:41 a.m.
Meaning that part of our relief would not be satisfied, meaning that the claim was denied
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:42 a.m.
And so adding libel doesn't change the fact that the DOJ has already denied the claim on the basis of the sought reinstatement
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:42 a.m.
It would not change the outcome in the slightest but only waste time and resources
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:47 a.m.
I don't really see a point in going to the DOJ with the entire complaint (including libel) just to have them deny it by saying there will not be a reinstatement
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:50 a.m.
Are you seeking reinstatement for your client based on your deprivation of rights claim
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:51 a.m.
I'd just like to confirm that first
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:51 a.m.
Yes, and the unlawful action one
singhski 2024-09-11 11:51 a.m.
Ok well clearly his issue is with the arbitration process
singhski 2024-09-11 11:51 a.m.
Nothing we can do about that
singhski 2024-09-11 11:52 a.m.@Kezzera Who sent the summons?
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:52 a.m.
No, it's regulated by statute and its specifics are further regulated bythe AG if I'm correct
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:52 a.m.
You didn't get the summons?
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:52 a.m.
I thought you got it
singhski 2024-09-11 11:52 a.m.
Zrihem and Turban were never summoned.
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:52 a.m.
You said to me to give it to you
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:52 a.m.
I thought you'd take it to them
singhski 2024-09-11 11:52 a.m.
No, I said to direct any summons to me in the future
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:53 a.m.
...
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:53 a.m.
boy i'm losing my marbles
singhski 2024-09-11 11:53 a.m.
As in, direct any summons to the SG to me
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:53 a.m.
So zrihem and turban are absolutely unaware
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:53 a.m.
that there's a pending civil case against them
singhski 2024-09-11 11:53 a.m.
I have just made them aware
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:53 a.m.
I sent it to you directly thinking that's what you meant
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:54 a.m.
that you were going to send it to them
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:54 a.m.
as their counsellors
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:54 a.m.
Well the government knew and the government intended to protect them
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:54 a.m.
I thought justin had already made the call far in advance
singhski 2024-09-11 11:54 a.m.
Okay, to clear up the record @Kezzera has count three been remanded (for a lack of a better word) to the DoJ for arbitration?
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:55 a.m.@DauuX Identify what remedies are tied to the libel, is it the money awards(edited)
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:55 a.m.
The money awards are for negligence and libel
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:55 a.m.
And we are well-within the limit for negligence alone
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:56 a.m.
I'm not inclined to proceed with the whole claim being stayed for one cause of action
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:56 a.m.
If I take 5 MSC 1 3203.1 in the most literal sense it may be for the elements of the claim
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:56 a.m.
and not the whole claim
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:57 a.m.
and that's very little discretion for the court afforded there
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:57 a.m.
The libel can go to arbitration
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:57 a.m.
But since the defendants SOMEHOW did not get the summons
KezzeraThe libel can go to arbitration
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:57 a.m.
That works for us I suppose
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:57 a.m.
I'm confused as to how we'd like to proceed with the reminaders
singhski 2024-09-11 11:57 a.m.
Okay, so libel is not being considered by this Court henceforth?
DauuXThat works for us I suppose
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:58 a.m.
aye
singhski 2024-09-11 11:58 a.m.
Until arbitrated
singhskiOkay, so libel is not being considered by this Court henceforth?
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:58 a.m.
Not until the arbitration issue is settled
singhski 2024-09-11 11:58 a.m.
Pefect, thanks.
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:58 a.m.
I would ask libel is dealt with promptly in arbitration
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:58 a.m.
you still have the remaining actions, we need to settle that
KezzeraBut since the defendants SOMEHOW did not get the summons
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:58 a.m.
I'd like to point out that that the government has made it clear it has an interest in this case and these are mostly claims which fall under official capacity
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:58 a.m.
So the Government has been given notice
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:58 a.m.
Yes so I did send it to Singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:59 a.m.
You sent the summons alone without any instructions
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:59 a.m.
Well, the official capacity claims are against the State and not individual Defendants
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:59 a.m.
It's in the summons Singhski
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:59 a.m.
What instructions are you talking about
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:59 a.m.
I really don't see what the issue here is
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:59 a.m.
In there it says, respond in two days, I gave the place, specific deadline
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:59 a.m.
I signed it and everything
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:59 a.m.
the reference is there
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:00 p.m.
I've attached the complaint
singhski 2024-09-11 12:01 p.m.
I'm really not sure what your point is
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:01 p.m.
Just for the record, I've just made an arbitration ticket
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:01 p.m.
to settle libel
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:01 p.m.
I would have to believe that this would go through the appropriate channels regardless, I've given the notice
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:01 p.m.
I don't get what your point is either
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:02 p.m.
I think he's trying to say default shouldn't be granted because he forgot to inform his clients
DauuXJust for the record, I've just made an arbitration ticket
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:02 p.m.
Thanks for notice
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:03 p.m.
Well apparently Singhski is aware only of this now
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:03 p.m.
and I don't buy it, you were aware of this case
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:03 p.m.
when you asked me earlier about you wanting to be included in this
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:03 p.m.
as the government's attorney
singhski 2024-09-11 12:04 p.m.
The service isn't even proper per Mayflower Rules of Civil Procedure anyways
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:04 p.m.
Lack of staff, I'm happy to re-issue it appropriately in the proper form
singhski 2024-09-11 12:04 p.m.
Since we didn't receive an initial pleading
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:04 p.m.
...
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:04 p.m.
what?
singhski 2024-09-11 12:04 p.m.
You didn't furnish a copy of the initial pleading to me whilst summoning
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:04 p.m.
Singhski
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:04 p.m.
It's in the summons
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:05 p.m.
It's two clicks
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:05 p.m.
It was in there the whole time
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:05 p.m.
You're saying you wanted the whole thing, the whole pdf, just sent to you directly, and because I instead provided the link which took you to it anyway, readily available, that's invalid ?
singhskiThe service isn't even proper per Mayflower Rules of Civil Procedure anyways
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:05 p.m.
And you realise this now only after you failed to submit a response?
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:05 p.m.
How convenient
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:05 p.m.
and not because, I don't know, maybe i directly sent it?
KezzeraYou're saying you wanted the whole thing, the whole pdf, just sent to you directly, and because I instead provided the link which took you to it anyway, readily available, that's *...
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:06 p.m.
Should've printed it out and sent through mail I suppose
singhski 2024-09-11 12:06 p.m.
Not all parties received the summons
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:06 p.m.
I'll make myself a fool and double check, if it says 'on paper' then I'll hit my head repeatedly and call myself a dunce as my own fault(edited)
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:06 p.m.
One second gentlemen
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:07 p.m.
Rule 7d
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:08 p.m.
Please, tell me where I went wrong there
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:09 p.m.
Rule 7e too, please
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:09 p.m.
Like I said, where it was done improperly I'm happy to re-issue it in the appropriate form
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:09 p.m.
and you would have an extra two days
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:10 p.m.
but I don't see it
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:10 p.m.
Well I mean the State has failed to respond anyway
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:10 p.m.
to the official capacity torts (which are inherently against them and not the named individuals)
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:10 p.m.
If no proper notice was given then it's on the courts to correct it
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:10 p.m.
It's only fair
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:10 p.m.
so until I see that issue
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:11 p.m.
I will have to believe that it was done in the appropriate form
singhski 2024-09-11 12:13 p.m.
Bare with me one moment.
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:13 p.m.
No worries
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:14 p.m.
I would direct attention to Rule 7b of the civil procedure rules
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:14 p.m.
for the re-issue
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:21 p.m.
well...
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:22 p.m.
sigma skibid
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:32 p.m.
He looks as if he hasn't slept..
singhski 2024-09-11 12:40 p.m.@Kezzera @DauuX
The summons was sent to myself at 12am GMT, we have until 12am GMT tomorrow to reply. The time on the summons is completely wrong, it suggests 2:57 AM PST, when in reality the deadline was 4PM PST today.
This is a material issue rather than a minor issue, a material issue because it severely impinges on the Defendant's ability to appear or respond, therefore, we believe it is just that the timer is reset and we receive the 7 days to reply from today. Furthermore, this Court erred again in giving usTWO days instead of SEVEN as required by Mayfl. R. Civ. P. 13(1)(a) the only exception being if a statute prescribes otherwise--no such statute exists. The seven days is for the official capacity claims it is actually FIVE
So (1) the Court has given us less than 2 days to reply (per the summons being sent at 4pm PST but the deadline for a reply being 2:57am PST on the 11th) and (2) the Court has given us theincorrect amount of time as prescribed by Mayfl. R. Civ. P.
The Court did not serve the Defendants, and expected the Solicitor General's Office to do so
"the summons continues to function as thesine qua non directing an individual or entity to participate in a civil action" Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999); this highlights the importance of the summons, that it is a document which directs the individual and/or entity to participate in this case, this is further empowered by our own provisions. The Defendants did not receive a summons, and thus were not directed to participate in this case. The duty of delivering this summons is delegated to the Judge or the Clerk as prescribed by Mayfl. R. Civ. P. (7)(a) not the OSG.(edited)
The summons was sent to myself at 12am GMT, we have until 12am GMT tomorrow to reply. The time on the summons is completely wrong, it suggests 2:57 AM PST, when in reality the deadline was 4PM PST today.
This is a material issue rather than a minor issue, a material issue because it severely impinges on the Defendant's ability to appear or respond, therefore, we believe it is just that the timer is reset and we receive the 7 days to reply from today. Furthermore, this Court erred again in giving us
So (1) the Court has given us less than 2 days to reply (per the summons being sent at 4pm PST but the deadline for a reply being 2:57am PST on the 11th) and (2) the Court has given us the
"the summons continues to function as the
singhski 2024-09-11 12:41 p.m.
I have no clue where the 2 days to reply standard comes from
singhskisinghski 2024-09-11 12:44 p.m.
Since we don't have a single response deadline as the FRCP does, we would ask the unified deadline, logically, should be 7 days.
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:45 p.m.
You were aware that the case was here
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:46 p.m.
I'd be fine with giving you, say, 3 more days
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:46 p.m.
Which would give you the required 5
singhski 2024-09-11 12:46 p.m.
The MRCP requires 7 days to respond to official capacity claims.
singhski 2024-09-11 12:47 p.m.
Since there are both individual and official capacity claims, the unified deadline has to be 7 days otherwise the deadline to respond to the official capacity claims is not in accordance with the MRCP.
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:47 p.m.
Well the state has been notified before
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:47 p.m.
it received its notice
singhskisinghski 2024-09-11 12:49 p.m.
So if you could give us our 7 days as required by the MRCP and in the future refrain from creating your own rules of procedure, that would be greatly appreciated.
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:53 p.m.
Thank God you noticed it after a motion for default was made 
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:54 p.m.
cc @singhski @Kezzera
singhskiKezzera 2024-09-11 01:16 p.m.
I find these acceptable
Kezzera 2024-09-11 01:16 p.m.
and correct
Kezzera 2024-09-11 01:18 p.m.
The court will accept its errors and re-issue a correct summons
Kezzera 2024-09-11 01:19 p.m.
there is this to note as well, thanks
DauuXcc @singhski @Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 01:19 p.m.
above*
Kezzera 2024-09-11 01:19 p.m.
So I'll expect a response on all four points
Kezzera 2024-09-11 01:21 p.m.@singhski I will re-issue a summons with the corrected date per the civil rules
Kezzera 2024-09-11 01:22 p.m.@DauuX I will then expect the state to respond to all points
Kezzera 2024-09-11 01:22 p.m.
didn't expect that intervention gg
DauuXcc @singhski @Kezzera
singhski 2024-09-11 01:26 p.m.
Okay, in that case, arbitration has been completed, and we are going to answer to all counts.
singhski 2024-09-11 01:26 p.m.
Is it 7 days or 5?
Kezzera 2024-09-11 01:27 p.m.
7 since the summons wholly is invalid, and this qualified in 13a1(edited)
Kezzera 2024-09-11 01:28 p.m.
Sorry to the plaintiff but that's a mistake on my end
Kezzera 2024-09-11 01:28 p.m.
If you want to respond earlier please feel free
DauuX 2024-09-11 01:28 p.m.
When does discovery start by the way
Kezzera 2024-09-11 01:35 p.m.
I'd wait until their response is in then we can kick the gears
Kezzera 2024-09-11 01:35 p.m.
Is there a compelling reason to ask for it very soon?
KezzeraIs there a compelling reason to ask for it very soon?
DauuX 2024-09-11 01:49 p.m.
I need subpoenas for some things hence the question
DauuXI need subpoenas for some things hence the question
Kezzera 2024-09-12 01:01 a.m.
If it's absolutely urgent I'd consult the rules before proceeding
DauuX 2024-09-12 01:19 a.m.@Kezzera @singhski My client has informed me that he's dropping reinstatement from the sought relief
DauuX 2024-09-12 01:20 a.m.
So just giving notice
DauuX 2024-09-12 01:20 a.m.
He's dropping it because he received another offer
DauuXHe's dropping it because he received another offer
singhski 2024-09-12 02:13 a.m.
From who?
singhski 2024-09-12 02:14 a.m.
Do you mean another department?
DauuX 2024-09-12 02:30 a.m.
The MNG
DauuX 2024-09-12 02:32 a.m.
From cluggas
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:36 a.m.
Thanks for notice and that's interesting
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:37 a.m.
Just confirming if he's still going ahead with the causes of action (all of them), and if he's looking for different relief or dropping it altogether? @DauuX
KezzeraJust confirming if he's still going ahead with the causes of action (all of them), and if he's looking for different relief or dropping it altogether? @DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-12 03:41 a.m.
My understanding is that we're proceeding with the same causes of action and the same relief, but no reinstatement
DauuX 2024-09-12 03:41 a.m.
So all the declaratory judgements, punitive damages, apology
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:43 a.m.
Right
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:43 a.m.
I'm also aware Zrihem has resigned and would like to discuss any potential implications about that with you both
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:44 a.m.
perhaps tomorrow...
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:44 a.m.
I'm sorting out a summons for the defendant so we don't delay this further for you
DauuX 2024-09-12 03:44 a.m.
Official capacity suits are against the office, not the named agent
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:44 a.m.
which I would like to reiterate my sincerest apologies
DauuXOfficial capacity suits are against the office, not the named agent
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:44 a.m.
We'll still have to discuss who will be named
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:44 a.m.
that was what I wanted to talk about
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:45 a.m.
(you've put their names on the paper)
DauuX 2024-09-12 03:45 a.m.
Well I don't think this changes anything
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:45 a.m.
No, it won't change the case substantially
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:45 a.m.
unless Singhski disagrees
DauuX 2024-09-12 03:46 a.m.
He's already said the case is against the State
DauuX 2024-09-12 03:46 a.m.
Even for libel
DauuX 2024-09-12 03:46 a.m.
Him changing his mind now would be funny
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:49 a.m.
I was on about the naming only
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:49 a.m.
Summons is being sorted, we'll discuss this tomorrow
KezzeraWe'll still have to discuss who will be named
singhski 2024-09-12 10:43 a.m.
1
It doesn't matter
1Kezzera 2024-09-12 01:20 p.m.
Thanks
UserMessage could not be loaded.
singhski 2024-09-13 10:54 a.m.
Can Zrihem be added here?
zrihem 2024-09-13 05:02 p.m.@Kezzera add Lucas aka mandatory morale here
zrihem 2024-09-13 05:02 p.m.
Thank you
zrihem 2024-09-13 05:03 p.m.
Or whoever is in such position to do so
zrihem 2024-09-13 05:06 p.m.
Also reiterating this in the channel concerning the prevention of one’s rights to the enlistment of the national guard, I have no position of power nor rank to do such as my resign letter serves as proof for sure. TO add on I had no intentions to do such thank you very much.
zrihem 2024-09-13 05:06 p.m.
I believe receiving the rank of MAJOR on tdark99’s behalf was more than enough.
DauuX 2024-09-13 05:06 p.m.
The official capacity torts are against your office, not you
zrihem 2024-09-13 05:07 p.m.
I have no Office
zrihem 2024-09-13 05:07 p.m.
I’m an individual
DauuX 2024-09-13 05:07 p.m.
You used to
DauuX 2024-09-13 05:07 p.m.
And it was sued
zrihem 2024-09-13 05:08 p.m.
singhski 2024-09-13 05:38 p.m.
Reply and motion to dismiss will be submitted momentarily
singhski 2024-09-13 05:39 p.m.@DauuX @Kezzera
singhski 2024-09-13 06:10 p.m.@Kezzera @DauuX
singhski 2024-09-13 06:12 p.m.@chris Also needs to be added
DauuX 2024-09-13 06:24 p.m.@singhski 
DauuX 2024-09-13 06:24 p.m.
This was denied
DauuX 2024-09-13 06:24 p.m.
Are you saying he received hearing/notice (as understood in light of the due process requirements), or that he had no employer, or that he was not dishonourably discharged?
DauuXAre you saying he received hearing/notice (as understood in light of the due process requirements), or that he had no employer, or that he was not dishonourably discharged?
singhski 2024-09-14 03:36 a.m.
That he was not entitled to one
Kezzera 2024-09-14 03:36 a.m.
Hello, going to bed here in a bit
Kezzera 2024-09-14 03:36 a.m.
Will add those in the trello and I will look at it tomorrow
singhskiThat he was not entitled to one
DauuX 2024-09-14 03:36 a.m.
So there is no contest that one was not provided, just whether he was entitled
Kezzera 2024-09-14 03:37 a.m.
(I'm going to account the conversation happening here in my decision if it is relevant to the pending actions)
DauuXSo there is no contest that one was not provided, just whether he was entitled
singhski 2024-09-14 03:37 a.m.
Exactly.
DauuX 2024-09-14 03:37 a.m.
I will submit a response to the MTD
DauuX 2024-09-14 03:37 a.m.
And I suppose we could resolve this through summary judgement since we agree on all material facts
DauuXI will submit a response to the MTD
Kezzera 2024-09-14 03:38 a.m.
Noted and I will see if that's the case when I read up on this tomorrow
singhski 2024-09-14 03:38 a.m.
I intend to file a MSJ at pre trial(edited)
singhski 2024-09-14 03:38 a.m.
In fact I have written it so it seems as though there will be two motions
singhski 2024-09-14 03:38 a.m.
No problem.
Kezzera 2024-09-14 03:38 a.m.
Please send in filing-center accordingly
Kezzera 2024-09-14 03:38 a.m.
I'm going to closely consult the rules as to the deadlines because I keep fucking that up
Kezzera 2024-09-14 03:39 a.m.
catch me if I make any incorrect statements as to dates, would greatly appreciate the assistance
Kezzera 2024-09-14 03:39 a.m.
Goodnight gentlemen
DauuX 2024-09-14 03:39 a.m.
We're all learning the rules I guess
Kezzera 2024-09-14 03:41 a.m.
It can be a complete mindfuck since everyone here has varying experiences with procedure
Kezzera 2024-09-14 05:08 p.m.
I disclose that I have engaged in a conversation with Singhski regarding the older summons (which has now been replaced), and the discussions were in relation to the incorrect hour being put on the summons, and a procedural approach for the summons to be corrected. I acknowledged this as a mistake on my end and believe this to be the agreed position.
KezzeraI disclose that I have engaged in a conversation with Singhski regarding the older summons (which has now been replaced), and the discussions were in relation to the incorrect hour...
singhski 2024-09-15 05:01 a.m.
Has @chris been added?
singhski 2024-09-15 08:43 a.m.@Kezzera Has discovery begun?
singhskiHas @chris been added?
Kezzera 2024-09-15 01:02 p.m.
I have added him
KezzeraI have added him
singhski 2024-09-15 01:03 p.m.
Thank you, and read above.
Kezzera 2024-09-15 01:17 p.m.
RAHHHHH IM LOSING MY MARBLES
singhskiKezzera 2024-09-15 01:17 p.m.
Per Mayfl. D. Ct. 3(1), pre-trial proceedings begin. The deadline is ten days from the moment summons was issued. Where we are deficient in time as ONCE AGAIN ME BEING COMPLETELY STUPID, please request more time (edited)
Kezzera 2024-09-15 01:17 p.m.
I'd like to thank the defendants for their timely response to the pleadings
Kezzera 2024-09-15 01:18 p.m.
Discovery will begin as of this message going out. If it helps @singhski and @DauuX greatly I will set out an advanced set of deadlines in writing and this shall constitute an order
Kezzera 2024-09-15 01:18 p.m.
(If it isn't, just say so we can be extremely flexible with the time)
Kezzera 2024-09-15 01:19 p.m.
I still have the MTD, and I will await DauuX to submit his response to it along with other filings he intends to submit
singhski 2024-09-15 01:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A21eP2yP5DRTAospoGk6btSfQ_-eZDI1/view?usp=sharing
singhski 2024-09-15 01:54 p.m.
Cc: @Kezzera @DauuX
Kezzera 2024-09-15 01:58 p.m.
that was lightning quick my god
DauuX 2024-09-15 02:02 p.m. 
DauuX 2024-09-15 02:02 p.m.@singhski Might be a bit of a shock but the Constitution overrules whatever the policy says
DauuXsinghski 2024-09-15 02:12 p.m.
I go into detail about that in my MSJ
singhski 2024-09-15 02:13 p.m.
Also, a screenshot of the Plaintiff replying will suffice
singhski 2024-09-15 02:13 p.m.
/answering to the interrogatories
DauuXsinghski 2024-09-15 02:17 p.m.
And no, it actually supports it not "overrules"
singhskiAnd no, it actually supports it not "overrules"
DauuX 2024-09-15 02:18 p.m.
in general
DauuX 2024-09-15 02:18 p.m.
the Constitution does overrule
DauuX 2024-09-15 02:18 p.m.
meaning has precedence, superiority, or however else you want to phrase it
DauuXthe Constitution does overrule
singhski 2024-09-15 02:18 p.m.
Overrule is to reject something, the Constitution does not reject the right to formal notices/hearings.
singhski 2024-09-15 02:19 p.m.
The other words are not synonymous to overrule
singhski 2024-09-15 02:19 p.m.
Whatever.
DauuX 2024-09-15 02:19 p.m.
"per the Guard's own policies" implies the Guard policy is at liberty here
DauuX 2024-09-15 02:19 p.m.
which it is not
DauuX 2024-09-15 02:27 p.m.@singhski @Kezzera Response to the MTD has been filed 1
1DauuXsinghski 2024-09-15 02:28 p.m.
Can you please post it here as a Google Drive PDF?
singhski 2024-09-15 02:52 p.m.
¶40 isn't in the statement of facts
singhski¶40 isn't in the statement of facts
DauuX 2024-09-15 02:56 p.m.
Youve had a chance to make your point
DauuX 2024-09-15 03:18 p.m.@Kezzera Pursuant to Mayfl. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(2), can I get a subpoena format to fill out
singhski 2024-09-15 03:37 p.m.@Kezzera When can we expect a ruling?
DauuXKezzera 2024-09-16 12:29 a.m.
Sure, let me see if I can get one cooked
singhskiKezzera 2024-09-16 12:29 a.m.
Soon now that I've got the responses etc
KezzeraSoon now that I've got the responses etc
singhski 2024-09-16 11:47 a.m.
Thanks. I hope so.
DauuX 2024-09-16 03:08 p.m.@Kezzera @singhski Interrogatories on our behalf have been filed as well 1
1DauuX 2024-09-16 03:08 p.m.
DauuX 2024-09-16 03:08 p.m.
courtesy link
DauuXsinghski 2024-09-16 03:15 p.m.
Thanks
DauuX
chris 2024-09-16 07:05 p.m.
Can I respond to 11
chris 2024-09-16 07:06 p.m.
In like 1 word
zrihem 2024-09-17 12:27 a.m.
chrisCan I respond to 11
DauuX 2024-09-17 12:57 a.m.
As long as it'a true
DauuX 2024-09-17 12:57 a.m.
It's*
Kezzera 2024-09-17 03:35 a.m.
I'm getting to these soon
Kezzera 2024-09-17 03:36 a.m.
I have a backlog at the moment to deal with
KezzeraI'm getting to these soon
singhski 2024-09-17 12:51 p.m.
Alright
Kezzera 2024-09-17 05:23 p.m.@DauuX Check your DMs
DauuX 2024-09-17 05:23 p.m.
done
Kezzerasinghski 2024-09-17 05:24 p.m.
Is it related to this case?
singhskiIs it related to this case?
DauuX 2024-09-17 05:27 p.m.
its the subpoena format
DauuXits the subpoena format
singhski 2024-09-17 05:29 p.m.
Oh okay np
DauuX 2024-09-17 05:50 p.m.
DauuX 2024-09-17 05:51 p.m.
I will get someone to serve the MNG
DauuX 2024-09-17 06:10 p.m.
1
cluggas was serviced by blaesum
1singhskiIs it related to this case?
Kezzera 2024-09-17 06:33 p.m.
yeah the subpoena
Kezzera 2024-09-17 06:33 p.m.
i gave a template potentially with edit so i sent it there, if you need it ill send it too
DauuXcluggas was serviced by blaesum
Kezzera 2024-09-17 06:33 p.m.
proof accepted
singhski 2024-09-19 10:32 a.m.@Kezzera No rush but, when can we expect a ruling, a lot of the pleadings I intend to submit revolve around this ruling
Kezzera 2024-09-19 10:56 p.m.
getting around to it, will expect to get a decision to you guys in about two days or earlier
Kezzera 2024-09-19 10:56 p.m.
i have fucked up majorly in some issues so rectifying
Kezzeragetting around to it, will expect to get a decision to you guys in about two days or earlier
singhski 2024-09-20 02:31 a.m.
We only have 5 days of discovery left
DauuX 2024-09-20 09:20 a.m.
DauuXsinghski 2024-09-20 10:47 a.m.
Okay, so, can we have evidence that the Plaintiff answered these questions under oath and in your DMs?
singhski 2024-09-20 10:47 a.m.
Or that he wrote that document
singhskiOkay, so, can we have evidence that the Plaintiff answered these questions under oath and in your DMs?
DauuX 2024-09-20 10:49 a.m.
?
DauuX 2024-09-20 10:49 a.m.
I don't see a reason for that
DauuX 2024-09-20 10:49 a.m.
Unless you're assuming I wrote that and signed his name without consent
DauuXUnless you're assuming I wrote that and signed his name without consent
singhski 2024-09-20 11:33 a.m.
I'm not, interrogatories must work differently on ROBLOX
singhski 2024-09-20 11:33 a.m.
There should be no issue in doing so.
singhskiI'm not, interrogatories must work differently on ROBLOX
singhski 2024-09-20 11:34 a.m.
Every answer I have provided in the past has proof.(edited)
DauuX 2024-09-20 11:35 a.m.
Good for you
DauuX 2024-09-20 11:35 a.m.
I'm not sure what you're getting at
DauuXI'm not sure what you're getting at
singhski 2024-09-20 11:42 a.m.
There are multiple reasons why unauthentic answers could lead to a mistrial and/or appeals
singhskiThere are multiple reasons why unauthentic answers could lead to a mistrial and/or appeals
DauuX 2024-09-20 11:43 a.m.
Any reason to believe they are not authentic..?
DauuXAny reason to believe they are not authentic..?
singhski 2024-09-20 11:43 a.m.
You're giving me many
singhskiYou're giving me many
DauuX 2024-09-20 11:44 a.m.
You've just said you weren't implying I falsified that
DauuX 2024-09-20 11:45 a.m.@Typical Can you confirm that the information provided in the document was information you affirmed is true
DauuXsinghski 2024-09-20 11:46 a.m.
Literally just release him answering the questions under oath
singhskiLiterally just release him answering the questions under oath
DauuX 2024-09-20 11:47 a.m.
I did in the document
DauuX 2024-09-20 11:47 a.m.
I'm assuming you want to make an outstanding discovery that he did not write the answers, but that I did
singhski 2024-09-20 11:47 a.m.
Okay, well, you shouldn't object to a request for production?
DauuX 2024-09-20 11:47 a.m.
Thing is, interrogatories can be answered with advice and guidance of an attorney. And so they were. Every answer was checked by me and Plaintiff
DauuX 2024-09-20 11:48 a.m.
And as long as he gave a green light, that's the end of everyone's concern
DauuXAnd as long as he gave a green light, that's the end of everyone's concern
singhski 2024-09-20 11:49 a.m.
Right, but is there any reason to object to a request for production?
singhski 2024-09-20 11:49 a.m.
He gave the green light, which means, it wasn't fabricated, there should be no issue here.
singhski 2024-09-20 11:49 a.m.
I don't expect you to treat me differently
DauuX 2024-09-20 11:50 a.m.
Him saying it wasn't should be enough
DauuX 2024-09-20 11:50 a.m.
My communication with my client is protected by the attorney-client privilege
DauuXHim saying it wasn't should be enough
singhski 2024-09-20 11:51 a.m.
Okay, and if there was a lie in his answers, he would be liable, right?
singhski 2024-09-20 11:52 a.m.
Great.
singhskiOkay, and if there was a lie in his answers, he would be liable, right?
DauuX 2024-09-20 11:52 a.m.
If perjury occurred, yes
singhski 2024-09-20 11:57 a.m.
Okay actually perfect, these are great.
DauuX 2024-09-20 11:59 a.m.
Shows what you were after
DauuXTypical 2024-09-20 02:30 p.m.
Yes.
TypicalYes.
singhski 2024-09-20 02:31 p.m.
Then waive privilege and send it here
DauuX 2024-09-20 02:46 p.m.
Nuh uh
DauuX 2024-09-20 02:46 p.m.
I ask that you stop asking my client to do that
singhski 2024-09-21 07:04 a.m.@Kezzera Today?
DauuX 2024-09-21 07:11 a.m.
Also moving for contempt against cluggas for failure to comply with the subpoena
singhski 2024-09-21 07:41 a.m.
Respectfully submitted, cc: @DauuX , @Kezzera
DauuX 2024-09-21 07:42 a.m.@singhski literally says either of them can answer
DauuX 2024-09-21 07:42 a.m.
They either can't read or don't know what either means
DauuX 2024-09-21 07:43 a.m.@Kezzera I move for a perjury hearing against defendant zrihem
DauuX 2024-09-21 07:43 a.m.
this implies the blacklist was not issued
DauuX 2024-09-21 07:43 a.m.
which is contrary to the truth
singhski 2024-09-21 07:44 a.m.
Which you are yet to provide evidence to
DauuX 2024-09-21 07:44 a.m.
Oh but I have
DauuX 2024-09-21 07:44 a.m.
Its in the complaint
DauuXsinghski 2024-09-21 07:47 a.m.
Also, no, you can only move for sanctions
singhskiAlso, no, you can only move for sanctions
DauuX 2024-09-21 07:48 a.m.
Yes, I worded that badly. I meant a contempt/sanctions hearing as zrihem committed perjury
DauuX 2024-09-21 07:49 a.m.
Was going to correct it but thought we're all reasonable enough to know that was the intent, alas, seems like we're not
singhski 2024-09-21 07:49 a.m.
That just didn't make sense
singhski 2024-09-21 08:32 a.m.
singhski 2024-09-21 10:32 a.m.@Kezzera Both parties agree to extend the discovery period by eight (8) days
singhski 2024-09-22 01:03 p.m.@Kezzera Hiii
DauuX 2024-09-22 03:16 p.m.
DauuX 2024-09-22 03:16 p.m.
cc @singhski @Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-23 02:51 p.m.@singhski @DauuX In the interest of time and of recent circumstances that I have been facing, I will look for a judge to take over this case
Kezzera 2024-09-23 02:51 p.m.
who will be more attentive to this matter(edited)
Kezzera 2024-09-23 02:52 p.m.
my lack of response to the issues stated here will be a detriment to both parties who are seeking prompt resolution.
singhskiKezzera 2024-09-23 02:52 p.m.
The discovery period is extended as agreed
Kezzera 2024-09-23 02:52 p.m.
The outstanding MTD remains pending, all current knowledge and material I have gathered will be handed to a new judge once one has come back to me with availability
Kezzera 2024-09-23 02:53 p.m.
This will be an administrative notice
Kezzera 2024-09-23 02:53 p.m.
I will ask the judge to, in the interest of justice, grant any reasonable extensions and waivers so that the case is compliant with the timelines set in the rules(edited)
Kezzera 2024-09-23 02:54 p.m.
No formal order is entered at this moment.
DauuX 2024-09-23 02:58 p.m.
Alrighty
Kezzera 2024-09-23 03:20 p.m.
I will look forward to have this reassigned as soon as possible, preferably within days
Kezzera 2024-09-23 03:21 p.m.
We have some new nominees who we hope to have confirmed
Kezzera 2024-09-23 03:21 p.m.
as most of you will have taken notice
Kezzera 2024-09-23 09:42 p.m.
I will have judge @acerxtro take over this case
Kezzera 2024-09-23 09:51 p.m.@acerxtro Complete
acerxtro 2024-09-23 10:27 p.m.
Hello.
acerxtro 2024-09-24 12:51 a.m.
What a mess this case is.
acerxtro 2024-09-24 12:52 a.m.@DauuX @chris @singhski @Typical Confirm your roles in this courtroom.
acerxtrosinghski 2024-09-24 02:27 a.m.
Deputy Solicitor General, for Zrihem & Turbanwarfare.
singhski 2024-09-24 02:27 a.m.
We currently have a pending motion to dismiss, and ruling on objections to interrogatories.
singhski 2024-09-24 02:28 a.m.
I request that be tended to first.
acerxtroDauuX 2024-09-24 04:39 a.m.
TDark99 is the Plaintiff, I'm his counsel
DauuX 2024-09-24 04:40 a.m.
As Singhski said, there is a motion to dismiss pending judgement, ruling on objections, but also a contempt of court hearing for cluggas for failure to comply with a subpoena and a hearing for zrihem for perjury
acerxtrochris 2024-09-24 10:14 a.m.
Honestly I've been focusing on school more than this
chris 2024-09-24 10:15 a.m.
and honestly i dont know what the actual fuck is going on
chris 2024-09-24 10:15 a.m.
i don't see a point of this case anymore as TDARK99 is quite frankly a major in national guard and seems to be completely fine
chris 2024-09-24 10:15 a.m.
actually hes OVER me and zriham in the national guard
chris 2024-09-24 10:15 a.m.
He's the only person I've seen on team ever so I don't see the issue
chris 2024-09-24 10:16 a.m.
I really just see this whole court case as (no offense) a real joke as he's asking money as a Major techically
chris 2024-09-24 10:16 a.m.
and me and zriham both really have time to do this nonsense anymore
chris 2024-09-24 10:17 a.m.
im a freshman in college and zriham has a shit ton of irl shit + the head dev for clark
chris 2024-09-24 10:17 a.m.
and you might say it doesnt matter here but majority of us put school and education and life over roblox
chris 2024-09-24 10:17 a.m.
under any circumstance
chris 2024-09-24 10:17 a.m.
it doesnt look like this right now
chris 2024-09-24 10:17 a.m.
i do deeply apologize for my outburst but like this is really dumb
DauuXAs Singhski said, there is a motion to dismiss pending judgement, ruling on objections, but also a contempt of court hearing for cluggas for failure to comply with a subpoena and a...
chris 2024-09-24 10:18 a.m.
adding to this cluggas does not give 2 shits about that contempt charge
chris 2024-09-24 10:18 a.m.
hes gonna leave and get pardoned by lame probably just go be back as mg
chrishes gonna leave and get pardoned by lame probably just go be back as mg
DauuX 2024-09-24 10:20 a.m.
Unless he gets impeached
Typical 2024-09-24 03:54 p.m.
(Man has just mixed real life with lego roleplay!!!!!)
acerxtro 2024-09-24 04:41 p.m.
Ok. Allow me some time to read up on this case.
acerxtro 2024-09-26 12:42 a.m.
Ok
acerxtro 2024-09-26 12:42 a.m.
What point are we in this trial? Still in the pretrial period, yes? @singhski @DauuX
acerxtroWhat point are we in this trial? Still in the pretrial period, yes? @singhski @DauuX
singhski 2024-09-26 02:05 a.m.
Yes
singhski 2024-09-26 02:05 a.m.
As I mentioned, we have ruling on objections, and a motion to dismiss
acerxtro 2024-09-26 08:08 a.m.
Ok I’ll check the MTD first
acerxtroOk I’ll check the MTD first
singhski 2024-09-26 10:42 a.m.
Perfect
DauuX 2024-09-26 03:21 p.m.@chris Do you have access to the old database
DauuX 2024-09-26 03:22 p.m.
and the NDA form
singhskiAs I mentioned, we have ruling on objections, and a motion to dismiss
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:21 p.m.
Is this the motion in question, the one from the 15th?(edited)
acerxtroIs this the motion in question, the one from the 15th?(edited)
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:28 p.m. 
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:29 p.m.
Our response was submitted on the 15th (16th on my screenshot cus Im European)
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:39 p.m.
Okay.
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:41 p.m.
I’ve looked through the motion, its response, and the civil complaint.
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:41 p.m.
I too see a problem with the tort of libel: there is no explanation or discussion of actual damages caused by the alleged libel of the defendant.
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:42 p.m.
Sure, the defendant could put out tons of articles saying the plaintiff is terrible, but there has to actually be harm caused in order to fulfill the requirements for libel. There are just simply no damages.
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:44 p.m.
If there are damages, and the defendant is the proximate cause of them, then that should be included in the complaint.
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:44 p.m.@DauuX
acerxtroIf there are damages, and the defendant is the proximate cause of them, then that should be included in the complaint.
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:45 p.m.
Well there is a direct and pleaded injury from him being a security risk
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:45 p.m.
He was put on the MNG's blacklist
DauuXHe was put on the MNG's blacklist
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:46 p.m.
That’s more of a claim against unjust administrative action, I’d think, than libel.(edited)
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:46 p.m.
I do understand the concern
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:47 p.m.
But the harm is that hes seen as a security risk and ridiculed for killing the trooper
DauuXHe was put on the MNG's blacklist
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:48 p.m.
It's also the defendant's act, not damage resulting from an act of the defendant.
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:48 p.m.
The defendants words need to lead to them suffering harm.
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:48 p.m.
I know
DauuXI do understand the concern
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:48 p.m.
Hence this
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:49 p.m.
This would only be fulfilling the act element, not the harm one.
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:49 p.m.
Well I don't disagree with you
DauuXBut the harm is that hes seen as a security risk and ridiculed for killing the trooper
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:49 p.m.
By who? How does this harm the defendant? Is he unable to get jobs due to this? How does he know his reputation is damaged?
acerxtroBy who? How does this harm the defendant? Is he unable to get jobs due to this? How does he know his reputation is damaged?
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:50 p.m.
Ridiculed by both turban and zrihem, I'd say him being classified as a security risk damages his reputation
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:51 p.m.
Can you prove that
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:51 p.m.
Which part
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:51 p.m.
The harm to his reputation
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:51 p.m.
How do you want me to do it?
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:51 p.m.
That's what I'm asking you
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:51 p.m.
That he has less respect points now or what?
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:51 p.m.
You can't prove damage to reputation
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:52 p.m.
Well, if I put out a memo saying Sheriff Tricky is a terrible sheriff and he backstage people, then he is denied from other jobs he applies to, that is harm that can be linked back to me right there.
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:52 p.m.
Not really
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:52 p.m.
The reason Tricky would be denied a job unjustly is due to me.
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:52 p.m.
He might be denied for other reasons
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:53 p.m.
Besides defendant tried to cover it up and lied
DauuXYou can't prove damage to reputation
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:53 p.m.
This is especially prevalent with businesses. If McDonalds runs ads on how Burger King has mold in their stores and the public believes it, and their sales drop..
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:54 p.m.
That count might have been a stretch
acerxtroThis is especially prevalent with businesses. If McDonalds runs ads on how Burger King has mold in their stores and the public believes it, and their sales drop..
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:54 p.m.
Yeah we might leave irrelevant examples out of this
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:54 p.m.
The two scenarios arent similar
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:55 p.m.
Well, the examples are relevant since nothing exists in the civil complaint to substantiate the tort of libel
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:55 p.m.
Burger King hardly is
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:55 p.m.
Neither party is a company
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:55 p.m.
Its the concept that matters, not the entity
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:55 p.m.
The concept differs too
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:56 p.m.
The civil complaint must either be amended before midnight to be acceptable, or the count of libel will be dismissed.
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:56 p.m.
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:56 p.m.
Dismiss it then
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:56 p.m.
Cus it's 1 am for me and I'm not working on it
DauuXCus it's 1 am for me and I'm not working on it
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:56 p.m.
Are you able to get it in within 24h?
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:57 p.m.
No because, again, it might have been a stretch
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:57 p.m.
Proving the damage would be difficult
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:57 p.m.
I agree
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:57 p.m.
Okay
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:57 p.m.
Count will be dismissed then
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:57 p.m.
I'll write an official ruling at a later date
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:57 p.m.
I'm fine with an oral ruling
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:58 p.m.
Next item is
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:58 p.m.
I'll take a look at the objections to the interrogatories next
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:58 p.m.
Yeah
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:58 p.m.
We submitted second ones with specified names in case thats sustained
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:58 p.m.
And then the hearing for zrihem
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:59 p.m.
Where were the objections raised?
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:59 p.m.
In def.'s answers
acerxtro 2024-09-26 07:18 p.m.
No objections in the plaintiff's answers.(edited)
acerxtro 2024-09-26 07:20 p.m.
These objections don't need rulings.
acerxtro 2024-09-26 07:21 p.m.@DauuX Please amend the interrogatories to specify which defendant each question is directed to.
DauuX 2024-09-26 07:21 p.m.
Already amended
DauuX 2024-09-26 07:22 p.m.
But the document literally says either of them can
DauuXchris 2024-09-26 08:36 p.m.
nda yes database idk
singhski 2024-09-27 02:22 a.m.@acerxtro Thank you your honour
DauuX 2024-09-27 05:26 a.m.@singhski Just a reminder that the interrogatories are due today
DauuX 2024-09-27 05:27 a.m.
In 10ish hours
DauuXsinghski 2024-09-27 10:47 a.m.
Yes, thank you.
singhski 2024-09-27 02:46 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, https://drive.google.com/file/d/13_9yrw8NrrnybOqgg9PFg3yyDZguHPNA/view?usp=sharing
singhski 2024-09-27 02:46 p.m.
Cc: @acerxtro , @DauuX
singhskiRespectfully submitted, https://drive.google.com/file/d/13_9yrw8NrrnybOqgg9PFg3yyDZguHPNA/view?usp=sharing
DauuX 2024-09-27 02:48 p.m.
How do neither zrihem and turbanwarfare know the answer to something they both were aware of?
DauuX 2024-09-27 02:48 p.m.
They handled the form, they discharged people for it, but they don't know about it?
DauuX 2024-09-27 02:50 p.m.
Besides, to the questions requiring separate responses, who wrote the ones there....?
DauuXHow do neither zrihem and turbanwarfare know the answer to something they both were aware of?
singhski 2024-09-27 03:07 p.m.
The form precedes both of their careers(edited)
singhski 2024-09-27 03:08 p.m.
There are responses from July 2019 to now
singhskiThe form precedes both of their careers(edited)
DauuX 2024-09-27 03:16 p.m.
Yeah that'd make sense if there were more responses than people in the group
DauuX 2024-09-27 03:17 p.m.
But the other way suggests that they either neglected it or something else happened
DauuXYeah that'd make sense if there were more responses than people in the group
singhski 2024-09-27 03:34 p.m.
There is
singhski 2024-09-27 03:36 p.m.
There are over 300 responses on that form
singhskiThere are over 300 responses on that form
DauuX 2024-09-27 03:42 p.m.
??
DauuX 2024-09-27 03:42 p.m.
Are you out of your mind
DauuXAre you out of your mind
singhski 2024-09-27 03:43 p.m.
No.
DauuX 2024-09-27 03:44 p.m. 
DauuX 2024-09-27 03:44 p.m.
Let the record reflect that you've just lied..
singhski 2024-09-27 03:45 p.m.
The responses are from a set period of time
singhski 2024-09-27 03:45 p.m.
Overall there are over 300 responses on that form
singhski 2024-09-27 03:45 p.m.
iirc
DauuX 2024-09-27 03:46 p.m.
That's not how it works
DauuX 2024-09-27 03:46 p.m.
Besides there's one form with the date being submitted as 3rd July 2019
DauuX 2024-09-27 03:46 p.m.
And that's the date one manually puts in, not the date of submission either
DauuX 2024-09-27 03:47 p.m.
Which we would've got had the government complied with our subpoena
singhski 2024-09-27 03:47 p.m.
Ah, you're right, thanks.
DauuX 2024-09-27 03:47 p.m.
Yeah so I'm not sure how the 300 got to you
Typical 2024-09-27 06:02 p.m.
hmm
acerxtro 2024-09-27 09:44 p.m.
Ok cool interrogatories have ended
acerxtro 2024-09-27 09:44 p.m.
Are we good to move onto discovery? @DauuX @singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 09:10 a.m.
singhski 2024-09-28 09:11 a.m.
singhski 2024-09-28 09:11 a.m.
Cc: @acerxtro @DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-28 09:14 a.m.
no way you're mixing up facts in the factual background
DauuXno way you're mixing up facts in the factual background
acerxtro 2024-09-28 10:21 a.m.
I don't think summary judgement is the right option for this reason
acerxtroI don't think summary judgement is the right option for this reason
DauuX 2024-09-28 10:22 a.m.
I'll stick to their response to the complaint
acerxtroI don't think summary judgement is the right option for this reason
singhski 2024-09-28 11:12 a.m.
It is, the Plaintiff simply repetitively asserting that they were employed doesn’t make it true
singhski 2024-09-28 11:12 a.m.
an MTD isn’t appropriate because we can’t refute facts of the complaint
singhski 2024-09-28 11:12 a.m.
in an MTD
Typical 2024-09-28 11:13 a.m.
Insane, so my discharge reason has changed again
TypicalInsane, so my discharge reason has changed again
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:14 a.m.
Apparently
Typical 2024-09-28 11:14 a.m.
First it was because I didn't get authorization
Typical 2024-09-28 11:14 a.m.
Then because i didn't sign an NDA
Typical 2024-09-28 11:14 a.m.
Then insubordination
Typical 2024-09-28 11:14 a.m.
Now
Typical 2024-09-28 11:14 a.m.
Was the insubordination punished?
Typical 2024-09-28 11:14 a.m.
No?
Typical 2024-09-28 11:14 a.m.
Was it pursued?
Typical 2024-09-28 11:14 a.m.
No?
Typical 2024-09-28 11:14 a.m.
Insane
singhski 2024-09-28 11:15 a.m.
You can’t argue an implied contract if there is evidence you weren’t adhering to it which suggests the lack of mutual assent
singhski 2024-09-28 11:15 a.m.
You made that much clear in your interrogatories, that you had no clue as to what you were agreeing to
singhskiYou can’t argue an implied contract if there is evidence you weren’t adhering to it which suggests the lack of mutual assent
Typical 2024-09-28 11:15 a.m.
Wait wait wait
Typical 2024-09-28 11:15 a.m.
Let me get this straight
Typical 2024-09-28 11:15 a.m.
Where exactly
Typical 2024-09-28 11:15 a.m.
Does general order 8 State
Typical 2024-09-28 11:16 a.m.
that an NDA has to be signed?
Typical 2024-09-28 11:16 a.m.@singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 11:16 a.m.
I’m paraphrasing but it requires it to be signed in order to maintain employment
Typical 2024-09-28 11:16 a.m.
Well don't paraphrase
Typical 2024-09-28 11:16 a.m.
Show
singhski 2024-09-28 11:16 a.m.
It’s at the start
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:16 a.m.
Is it
Typical 2024-09-28 11:16 a.m. 
Typical 2024-09-28 11:16 a.m.
Insane
singhski 2024-09-28 11:17 a.m.
Did you consent and affirm to the following?
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:17 a.m.
He was willingly maintaining employment
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:17 a.m.
I suppose.
Typical 2024-09-28 11:17 a.m.
Which would mean
Typical 2024-09-28 11:17 a.m.
I automatically
Typical 2024-09-28 11:17 a.m.
Agree
Typical 2024-09-28 11:17 a.m.
to the NDA.
singhski 2024-09-28 11:17 a.m.
You still have to read something to agree to it; mutual assent.
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:17 a.m.
God you're lost
Typical 2024-09-28 11:18 a.m.
I read through the Defense policy
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:18 a.m.
How many times have you read the terms of service for something
singhski 2024-09-28 11:18 a.m.
Put it in your reply
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:18 a.m.
Oh I will
Typical 2024-09-28 11:18 a.m.
Replies replies
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:18 a.m.
I'm just not sure how to untangle it
Typical 2024-09-28 11:18 a.m.
Making bullshit up
Typical 2024-09-28 11:18 a.m.
Answer the question
Typical 2024-09-28 11:18 a.m.
Where does it state
Typical 2024-09-28 11:18 a.m.
That you have to sign an NDA
singhski 2024-09-28 11:18 a.m.
Put it in your reply I’m not responding to your questions
TypicalI read through the Defense policy
singhski 2024-09-28 11:20 a.m.
And you didn’t see the NDA?
Typical 2024-09-28 11:20 a.m.
Alright, so it would be considered perjury correct? You're stating that General order states that you need to sign an NDA, it does in-fact never mention having to sign an NDA.
singhskiAnd you didn’t see the NDA?
Typical 2024-09-28 11:20 a.m.
I did?
singhski 2024-09-28 11:20 a.m.
Which is listed in the defense policy trello?
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:20 a.m.
Alrighty gentlemen!
singhski 2024-09-28 11:20 a.m.
Okay interesting, so you saw it, but didn’t ask for it
singhskiOkay interesting, so you saw it, but didn’t ask for it
Typical 2024-09-28 11:20 a.m.
I have to repeat myself again
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:20 a.m.
Let's not just
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:21 a.m.
I'll file a formal reply to the motion, this seems to be somewhat a trial to settle the facts
Typical 2024-09-28 11:21 a.m.
never does it state you have to go on a google forum or any forum to sign the NDA, the moment you are employed and still want to be employed you automatically agree to follow the terms
singhski 2024-09-28 11:21 a.m.
Please do, all you’ve really said is that you had no interest in signing an NDA. Also that statement contradicts your assertions at arbitration.
Typical 2024-09-28 11:22 a.m.
Dragging out this case won't make us stop pursuing charges.
TypicalI read through the Defense policy
singhski 2024-09-28 11:34 a.m.
¶ 13 of Defendant's interrogatories directed to you, the Plaintiff reads as follows; "Before being offered “employment” in the Guard, did you read the Mayflower National Guard’s defense policy?", your answer was (utilizing the same format as the interrogatories) "No.".(edited)
singhski 2024-09-28 11:36 a.m.@acerxtro We will have an OSC in for contempt.
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:39 a.m.
Ummmm!
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:39 a.m.
Fun.
singhski 2024-09-28 11:42 a.m.
Anyway, furthermore, the point being made in the MSJ is flatly laid out. “Property interests, of course, are not created by the Constitution. Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law -- rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.” Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth , 408 U.S. 564 (1972). There is no state law defining property interests. There are however rules in place created by the MNG in their department policies. It is also the understanding of the MNG that the NDA is required for an individual to maintain their employment. If someone hasn't actually read the terms of their employment as reflected by ¶ 13 of Pl's ans to Defendants interrogatories, there can't possibly be a physical or implied contract.
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:42 a.m.
You've had your chance to make a motion
singhski 2024-09-28 11:42 a.m.
It's all in there.
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:42 a.m.
Didn't say it wasn't
singhskisinghski 2024-09-28 11:43 a.m.
Anyway this will be referred to the DOJ's criminal division.
singhski¶ 13 of Defendant's interrogatories directed to you, the Plaintiff reads as follows; "Before being offered “employment” in the Guard, did you read the Mayflower National Guard’s de...(edited)
singhski 2024-09-28 12:08 p.m.
He hasn't read it, (thus he didn't mutually assent to the policies of the Guard, and wasn't employed)
singhski¶ 13 of Defendant's interrogatories directed to you, the Plaintiff reads as follows; "Before being offered “employment” in the Guard, did you read the Mayflower National Guard’s de...(edited)
Typical 2024-09-28 12:14 p.m.
Indeed, i was employed then immediately sent Defense Policy, so I did read the defense policy
TypicalIndeed, i was employed then immediately sent Defense Policy, so I did read the defense policy
singhski 2024-09-28 12:14 p.m.
Stop perjuring yourself.
Typical 2024-09-28 12:15 p.m. 
singhski 2024-09-28 12:15 p.m.
You should probably consult @DauuX before sending messages here.
TypicalClick to see attachment.
Typical 2024-09-28 12:17 p.m.
So it is true that I didn't read the defense policy before my employment, I read it directly after.
singhski 2024-09-28 12:17 p.m.
So you read the MNG's policies after you were employed?
singhski 2024-09-28 12:17 p.m.
Yes or no
Typical 2024-09-28 12:19 p.m.
Strange? I answered already, has I already stated in my questionnaire I did not read the Defense Policy before I was employed.
TypicalStrange? I answered already, has I already stated in my questionnaire I did not read the Defense Policy before I was employed.
singhski 2024-09-28 12:19 p.m.
Okay, great, you didn't sign any sort of employment contract in that case. Not an implied one, not a literal one.(edited)
singhskiOkay, great, you didn't sign any sort of employment contract in that case. Not an implied one, not a literal one.(edited)
Typical 2024-09-28 12:20 p.m.
Neither did other guardsmen at the time
TypicalNeither did other guardsmen at the time
singhski 2024-09-28 12:20 p.m.
This is about you . Not other guardsmen.
singhski 2024-09-28 12:21 p.m.
I'm still yet to see an instance of that
singhskiOkay, great, you didn't sign any sort of employment contract in that case. Not an implied one, not a literal one.(edited)
Typical 2024-09-28 12:21 p.m.
Funnyily enough
Typical 2024-09-28 12:21 p.m.
An employment contract doesnt exist.
Typical 2024-09-28 12:21 p.m.
For MNG
Typical 2024-09-28 12:22 p.m.
Furthermore
singhskiThis is about you . Not other guardsmen.
Typical 2024-09-28 12:22 p.m.
This
Typical 2024-09-28 12:22 p.m.
its about "me"
singhski 2024-09-28 12:23 p.m.
"All members of the National Guard who do seek employment, shall contact their employer in regards of signing a Google Form as part of this agreement.". Soooo you read the defense policy and didn't reach out to Etsuzo to send the "Google Form"?
singhski"All members of the National Guard who do seek employment, shall contact their employer in regards of signing a Google Form as part of this agreement.". Soooo you read the defense ...
Typical 2024-09-28 12:23 p.m.
?
singhski 2024-09-28 12:23 p.m.
GO#8
Typical 2024-09-28 12:23 p.m.
They changed it
singhski 2024-09-28 12:23 p.m.
Ah.
singhski 2024-09-28 12:25 p.m.
All we require is an understanding though. If the established practice was that the NDA needs to be signed in order to maintain employment, and you didn't sign it, you don't have a property interest.
singhski 2024-09-28 12:26 p.m.Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth , 408 U.S. 564 (1972)
singhskiAll we require is an understanding though. If the established practice was that the NDA needs to be signed in order to maintain employment, and you didn't sign it, you don't have...
Typical 2024-09-28 12:26 p.m.
Intresting
Typical 2024-09-28 12:28 p.m.
This "established practice" was not brought up to any recruitment personnel or High command
singhski 2024-09-28 12:28 p.m.
?
Typical 2024-09-28 12:30 p.m.
Maybe you can help since I'm struggling to find this person
Typical 2024-09-28 12:30 p.m.
Who is 3yx?
Typical 2024-09-28 12:31 p.m.@singhski
Typical 2024-09-28 12:33 p.m.
But it doesn't really matter now does it
Typical 2024-09-28 12:33 p.m.
Since my discharge reaso
Typical 2024-09-28 12:34 p.m.
reason*
Typical 2024-09-28 12:34 p.m.
and reason for removal
Typical 2024-09-28 12:34 p.m.
Has been changed multiple times
Typical 2024-09-28 12:35 p.m. 
TypicalClick to see attachment.
Typical 2024-09-28 12:35 p.m.
It has already been proven that I was recruited into MNG before the announcemnet but due to human error I wasn't let in the group.
Typical 2024-09-28 12:35 p.m.
Bringing some bullshit about the NDA
Typical 2024-09-28 12:35 p.m.
Which never was
Typical 2024-09-28 12:36 p.m.
The reason for my removal
Typical 2024-09-28 12:36 p.m.
I can even bring up the times I asked
Typical 2024-09-28 12:36 p.m.
Turban
Typical 2024-09-28 12:36 p.m.
For the first time
Typical 2024-09-28 12:36 p.m.
Why i was removed
Typical 2024-09-28 12:36 p.m.
Turban was also never even allowed to authorize discharge
Typical 2024-09-28 12:37 p.m.
So quite frankly bringing in the NDA argument or employment argument
Typical 2024-09-28 12:37 p.m.
Into an argument about the fact that i was recruited before zrihems deadline
Typical 2024-09-28 12:37 p.m.
Makes no sense
Typical 2024-09-28 12:39 p.m.
The NDA in no way shape or form finalized your "employment", ~25% of the then current Clark County MNG did not sign the form for Clark County NDA
TypicalBringing some bullshit about the NDA
singhski 2024-09-28 12:42 p.m.
Sure. But your complaint relies on having a property interest. You do not have a property interest.
singhskiSure. But your complaint relies on having a property interest. You do not have a property interest.
Typical 2024-09-28 12:44 p.m.
Elaborate on what property interest is.
TypicalElaborate on what property interest is.
singhski 2024-09-28 12:44 p.m.
No.
singhski 2024-09-28 12:45 p.m.
I'm not going to entertain this bickering any more, please file your response in accordance with the Rules of the Court.
Typical 2024-09-28 12:45 p.m.
Also this? Insubordination was never my reason for removal.
Typical 2024-09-28 12:46 p.m.
Nor did random take any actions against me for it.
Typical 2024-09-28 12:47 p.m.
Infact
Typical 2024-09-28 12:47 p.m.
It has never
Typical 2024-09-28 12:47 p.m.
before been mentioned that this was why I was removed
Typical 2024-09-28 12:48 p.m.
It's insane right?
You go from my removal is because I was recruited before the deadline, to I didn't sign the NDA, to now insubordination.
You go from my removal is because I was recruited before the deadline, to I didn't sign the NDA, to now insubordination.
Typical 2024-09-28 12:48 p.m.
You keep contradicting yourself
Typical 2024-09-28 12:48 p.m.
With every new document you put out
singhski 2024-09-28 12:48 p.m.
Typical 2024-09-28 12:50 p.m.
You're unable to logically reason why you're changing the reason for my removal every single time?
All you're doing is bringing new things in that never related to the original reason for removal?
All you're doing is bringing new things in that never related to the original reason for removal?
singhskiI'm not going to entertain this bickering any more, please file your response in accordance with the Rules of the Court.
singhski 2024-09-28 12:50 p.m.
^
TypicalAlso this? Insubordination was never my reason for removal.
Typical 2024-09-28 12:50 p.m.
Your responses aren't even coherent, as I've already said.
Typical 2024-09-28 12:51 p.m.
Contradictions on top of contradictions.
Typical 2024-09-28 12:55 p.m.
A little while ago you were using a new version of a document after the incident occurred to prove your point.
This incoherent nonsense that you keep pumping out to protect your clients is only to delay the case, in hopes that we drop the case.
As I've already stated before.
We wont drop the case.(edited)
This incoherent nonsense that you keep pumping out to protect your clients is only to delay the case, in hopes that we drop the case.
As I've already stated before.
We wont drop the case.(edited)
acerxtro 2024-09-28 03:23 p.m.
Shut up @Typical @singhski
acerxtro 2024-09-28 03:24 p.m.
Stop bickering in my chambers
singhskiacerxtro 2024-09-28 03:25 p.m.
Discovery is not open and I don’t think these are filed in accordance with the rules of the court.
acerxtroDiscovery is not open and I don’t think these are filed in accordance with the rules of the court.
singhski 2024-09-28 03:27 p.m.
Discovery started 13 days ago
singhskiDiscovery started 13 days ago
acerxtro 2024-09-28 03:32 p.m.
Did the previous judge open it
acerxtroDid the previous judge open it
singhski 2024-09-28 03:33 p.m.
Yes, I am not sure as to how your honour believes interrogatories were being filed.
singhski 2024-09-28 03:33 p.m.
Nonetheless here is the message
acerxtro 2024-09-28 03:33 p.m.
Interesting
KezzeraPer Mayfl. D. Ct. 3(1), pre-trial proceedings begin. The deadline is ten days from the moment summons was issued. Where we are deficient in time as ONCE AGAIN ME BEING COMPLETELY S...(edited)
singhski 2024-09-28 03:33 p.m.
.
singhski 2024-09-28 03:34 p.m.
We requested an extension which ended today
acerxtro 2024-09-28 03:34 p.m.
Ok
singhskiWe requested an extension which ended today
DauuX 2024-09-28 03:45 p.m.
Tomorrow
singhskiDauuX 2024-09-28 03:46 p.m.
E
DauuXTomorrow
singhski 2024-09-28 04:40 p.m.
Then we renew our motion for tomorrow
DauuX 2024-09-28 05:38 p.m.
cc @singhski
DauuX 2024-09-28 05:38 p.m.
not pinging acer cus thats just the evidence
singhskiThen we renew our motion for tomorrow
acerxtro 2024-09-29 02:50 a.m.
Discovery extended by 8d
acerxtro 2024-09-29 02:50 a.m.
if this is too long, you can close it at any time.
DauuX 2024-09-29 06:29 a.m.
I mean I think we're done with discovery? @singhski
DauuX 2024-09-29 06:29 a.m.
Both parties have submitted their discoveries
DauuXI mean I think we're done with discovery? @singhski
singhski 2024-09-29 06:30 a.m.
Yes
DauuX 2024-09-29 05:09 p.m.
cc @singhski @acerxtro
DauuX 2024-09-29 05:09 p.m.
the response has our msj as well
DauuX 2024-09-29 05:10 p.m.
to save time and effort it redirects you to the argument in the response
singhski 2024-09-29 05:11 p.m.
Thanks!
singhski 2024-10-01 02:59 p.m.
DauuX 2024-10-01 05:00 p.m.
Im beginning to think some attorneys are either manifestly incompetent or very misleading
DauuX 2024-10-01 05:00 p.m.
And Im not sure which one is worse
acerxtro 2024-10-02 05:01 p.m.
I will take a look soon
acerxtro 2024-10-03 08:21 p.m.@DauuX @singhski I am not granting summary judgement in this case primarily due to there being obvious disagreements of material facts(edited)
acerxtrosinghski 2024-10-04 02:33 a.m.
Such as?
DauuX 2024-10-04 03:19 a.m.
I'm sorry what
DauuX 2024-10-04 03:19 a.m.
Just stick to the complaint and the response
DauuX 2024-10-04 03:20 a.m.
There is (almost) no disagreement at all, let alone over material facts
DauuX 2024-10-04 03:20 a.m.
The employment status of plaintiff is disputed and that's a question of law
singhski 2024-10-04 12:04 p.m.@acerxtro ^
TypicalSo it is true that I didn't read the defense policy before my employment, I read it directly after.
acerxtro 2024-10-04 03:22 p.m.
And this is all about law, not fact?
acerxtro 2024-10-04 03:22 p.m.@singhski @DauuX
acerxtroAnd this is all about law, not fact?
DauuX 2024-10-04 03:39 p.m.
I don't see the relevance
DauuX 2024-10-04 03:40 p.m.
This isn't a material fact
DauuX 2024-10-04 03:40 p.m.
Or, to be honest, a fact disputed
singhski 2024-10-04 03:46 p.m.@DauuX @acerxtro I think a hearing is in order here
acerxtro 2024-10-04 03:53 p.m.
Ok cool.
acerxtro 2024-10-04 03:53 p.m.
I will grant summary judgment.
acerxtro 2024-10-04 03:53 p.m.
I'll begin writing this weekend.
acerxtroI will grant summary judgment.
singhski 2024-10-04 03:56 p.m.
In favor of?
acerxtro 2024-10-04 03:57 p.m.
That will be decided this weekend.
acerxtroThat will be decided this weekend.
singhski 2024-10-04 04:00 p.m.
Okay.
DauuX 2024-10-05 11:59 a.m.
If any facts need to be cleared up let us know please
DauuX 2024-10-05 11:59 a.m.
The case is somewhat complicated
singhski 2024-10-06 10:31 a.m.@acerxtro ^
DauuXIf any facts need to be cleared up let us know please
acerxtro 2024-10-06 04:29 p.m.@DauuX @singhski Can both of you make a hearing today?
DauuX 2024-10-06 04:29 p.m.
Well its 1030 pm here
DauuX 2024-10-06 04:29 p.m.
So as long as we do it soon, sure
acerxtro 2024-10-06 04:29 p.m.@singhski
acerxtrosinghski 2024-10-06 04:30 p.m.
How long do you expect it to take?
DauuX 2024-10-06 04:31 p.m.
but if its about the facts, then this is our account
singhskiHow long do you expect it to take?
acerxtro 2024-10-06 04:31 p.m.
1h at most
singhski 2024-10-06 04:32 p.m.
Okay, but I don’t know the map very well
DauuX 2024-10-06 04:32 p.m.
(neither)
singhski 2024-10-06 04:32 p.m.
So locating the courtroom will be a problem
DauuX(neither)
acerxtro 2024-10-06 04:32 p.m.
(neither)
acerxtro 2024-10-06 04:32 p.m.
Mersea it is..
DauuX 2024-10-06 04:33 p.m.
give me 10
DauuX 2024-10-06 04:33 p.m.
I need to finish one thingy
acerxtro 2024-10-06 04:33 p.m.
Join and go there
acerxtro 2024-10-06 04:33 p.m.
I will be 10m too
acerxtroJoin and go there
singhski 2024-10-06 04:37 p.m.
Which court?
singhskiWhich court?
acerxtro 2024-10-06 04:42 p.m.
The tiny Mersea one
acerxtro 2024-10-06 04:42 p.m.
near the Mersea bank
acerxtroThe tiny Mersea one
singhski 2024-10-06 04:42 p.m.
I'm there
singhski 2024-10-06 04:42 p.m.
actually wait idk
DauuX 2024-10-06 04:43 p.m.@singhski i see u
DauuX 2024-10-06 04:43 p.m.
its there
singhski 2024-10-06 04:45 p.m.@acerxtro We are here
DauuXbut if its about the facts, then this is our account
DauuX 2024-10-06 04:51 p.m.
e
singhski 2024-10-06 05:09 p.m.
"elements of a contract include an offer, acceptance, contractual capacity, consideration (the
bargained for legal benefit and/or detriment), a manifestation of mutual assent "
bargained for legal benefit and/or detriment), a manifestation of mutual assent "
singhski 2024-10-06 05:09 p.m.@acerxtro
singhski 2024-10-06 05:09 p.m.
Kostelnik v. Helper, 96 Ohio St. 3d 1 - Ohio: Supreme Court 2002
singhski 2024-10-06 05:26 p.m.@acerxtro 
acerxtro 2024-10-06 05:27 p.m.
Public employees may have a constitutionally protected property interest in their employment. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542, 546 (1985); Andrew v. Clark, 561 F.3d 261, 269 (4th Cir. 2009).
acerxtroPublic employees may have a constitutionally protected property interest in their employment. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542, 546 (1985); Andrew v. Clark, ...
acerxtro 2024-10-06 05:47 p.m.
"A public employee's interest in continued employment may constitute a property interest." Sweitzer v. Dean , 118 Idaho 568, 798 P.2d 27, 30 (Idaho 1990) (citing Simmons v. Board of Trustees, Inc. , 102 Idaho 552, 633 P.2d 1130, 1132 (1980)); see also Sue Skaskiw & Vt. Volunteer Servs. for Animals Humane Soc'y v. Vt. Agency of Agric. , 730 A.2d 601, 605 (Vt. 1999) (citing Brennan v. Town of Colchester , 169 Vt. 175, 179, 730 A.2d 601, 605 (1999)). ("We have recognized a protected property interest in the right to government employment.")
DauuX 2024-10-06 05:53 p.m.
just wanted to point out that the government is alleging that plaintiff broke policy by disobeying a direct order while also simultaneously alleging that plaintiff was not an employee
DauuX 2024-10-06 05:53 p.m.
how could he have disobeyed an order from a superior if he werent an employee..?
acerxtro"A public employee's interest in continued employment may constitute a property interest." Sweitzer v. Dean , 118 Idaho 568, 798 P.2d 27, 30 (Idaho 1990) (citing *Simmons v. Board...
singhski 2024-10-07 02:38 a.m.
Thanks for telling me what a property interest is.
singhski 2024-10-07 02:39 a.m.
"There is no constitutionally protected property interest [...] beyond what is expressly stated in the employment contract." Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth , 408 U.S. 564 (1972).
singhski 2024-10-07 02:45 a.m.
"they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law "
singhski 2024-10-07 02:46 a.m.
No promise of continued employment was made, that promise has to derive from sources such as state law or contracts
singhski 2024-10-07 02:49 a.m.
A mere expectation of "continued employment" is fruitless unless defined or promise by contract or state law
singhskiNo promise of continued employment was made, that promise has to derive from sources such as state law or contracts
DauuX 2024-10-07 03:44 a.m.
Ur so silly
DauuX 2024-10-07 03:45 a.m.
That promise of continued employment is IN THE DEFENSE POLICY
DauuX 2024-10-07 03:45 a.m.
An employer's policy can be part of a contract
DauuX 2024-10-07 03:45 a.m.
This is literally what my motion was all about
DauuX 2024-10-07 03:46 a.m.
The policy says you won't be fired unless you commit X, Y or Z
DauuX 2024-10-07 03:46 a.m.
Thats literally a promise of continued employment absent sufficient cause
DauuXThat promise of continued employment is IN THE DEFENSE POLICY
singhski 2024-10-07 12:36 p.m.
The DP itself isn't a contract
singhski 2024-10-07 12:36 p.m.
Unless preceding it was a verbal, implied contract
singhski 2024-10-07 12:37 p.m.
Anyway since mutual assent is decided on a state by state basis it is the discretion of the Judge to dictate what is required for a contract to be legally binding
singhski 2024-10-07 12:38 p.m.
The DP is not by any means a contract, its just the policy of the Guard. Reading it doesn't make you an employee.
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:38 p.m.
What are you even on about
singhski 2024-10-07 12:38 p.m.
The only "contract" here is the "implied contract" you claim between Etsuzo and Tdark, which the Judge has unfounded
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:38 p.m.
Thats not true at all..?
DauuXThat promise of continued employment is IN THE DEFENSE POLICY
singhski 2024-10-07 12:38 p.m.
.
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:39 p.m.
The judge couldnt understand your problem
singhski"There is no constitutionally protected property interest [...] beyond what is expressly stated in the employment contract." Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth , 408 U.S. ...
singhski 2024-10-07 12:39 p.m.
.
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:39 p.m.
You were literally saying such nonsense that he had you swear
singhski 2024-10-07 12:39 p.m.
If continued employment is to be construed as constitutionally protected property interest, its guarantee must derive from the employment contract
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:39 p.m.
yes and an employers policy can be considered part of the contract
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:40 p.m.
And it has to be in the context of mayflower
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:40 p.m.
Unless the MNG drafts proper contracts which I somehow doubt
singhski 2024-10-07 12:40 p.m.
No, the defense policy is not at all part of the contract, yes, it defines what the contract is, but reading it doesn't make you an employee.
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:40 p.m.
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:40 p.m.
No one is saying that reading it makes you an employee
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:41 p.m.
honestly
DauuXThat promise of continued employment is IN THE DEFENSE POLICY
singhski 2024-10-07 12:41 p.m.
That doesn't constitute a promise of continued employment since it is "beyond what is expressly stated in the employment contract".
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:41 p.m.
So what is in the employment contract
singhski 2024-10-07 12:41 p.m.
The policy IS. NOT. THE. CONTRACT.
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:41 p.m.
Whats the text of the NDA form
singhski 2024-10-07 12:41 p.m.
The google form was the contract
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:42 p.m.
Yeah and I want its text
singhski 2024-10-07 12:42 p.m.
if Etsuzo was smart enough he would have provided it
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:42 p.m.
Oh I forgot the government didnt provide it
singhski 2024-10-07 12:42 p.m.
as he was supposed to
DauuXOh I forgot the government didnt provide it
singhski 2024-10-07 12:42 p.m.
Either way the "contract" they had doesn't make any promises of continued employment
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:42 p.m.
The NDA form doesnt contain anything close to a full contract 
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:42 p.m.
Oh but it does!
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:42 p.m.
Ok honestly Im not wasting my time
singhski 2024-10-07 12:42 p.m.
LOL
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:42 p.m.
You just say the same stuff
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:42 p.m.
Toodles and have a good day
singhski 2024-10-07 12:42 p.m.
"It does" "nvm it doesnt gotta retract"
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:43 p.m.
It does
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:43 p.m.
You just dont know what continued employment is
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:43 p.m.
u think it needs specifically to say "continued employment"
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:43 p.m.
just like a contract needs to have the word "contract"
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:43 p.m.
thats ur level of legal analysis
singhski 2024-10-07 12:44 p.m.
"Oh but it does!"
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:44 p.m.
Yeah the defense policy does
singhski 2024-10-07 12:44 p.m.
Yes sur
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:44 p.m.
and its part of the contract
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:44 p.m.
singhski 2024-10-07 12:44 p.m.
Yes sur
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:44 p.m.
peak doj moment
singhski"elements of a contract include an offer, acceptance, contractual capacity, consideration (the bargained for legal benefit and/or detriment), a manifestation of mutual assent "
singhski 2024-10-07 12:44 p.m.
Anyway the Court has already employed this standard
singhski 2024-10-07 12:45 p.m.
and discussed manifestation of mutual assent be it you disagree with it
singhski 2024-10-07 12:45 p.m.
Which is not present
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:45 p.m. 
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:45 p.m.
The Court has also said this..
DauuXClick to see attachment.
singhski 2024-10-07 12:45 p.m.
Which contract?
singhski 2024-10-07 12:45 p.m.
what was the contract you haven't made that much clear
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:45 p.m.
Were you not there
singhski 2024-10-07 12:45 p.m.
Literally just say it
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:46 p.m.
Toodles!
singhski 2024-10-07 12:46 p.m.
I don't care enough for your sanctimonious crap talk
singhski 2024-10-07 12:46 p.m.
What was the contract?
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:46 p.m.@acerxtro Please do consider the MSJs because doing trial will make me die
singhskiWhat was the contract?
singhski 2024-10-07 12:46 p.m.@acerxtro
DauuXThe Court has also said this..
singhski 2024-10-07 12:48 p.m.
Bearing in mind this is the same Court which tried to open discovery like a week after it was opened because it thought interrogatories were separate to the discovery process(edited)
acerxtro 2024-10-07 04:12 p.m.
Shut up with this tomfoolery @singhski @DauuX
acerxtroShut up with this tomfoolery @singhski @DauuX
singhski 2024-10-07 04:54 p.m.
Is your honor ruling on any of the motions?
singhski 2024-10-08 09:53 a.m.@acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-08 12:38 p.m.
It has been 24 hours
acerxtroShut up with this tomfoolery @singhski @DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-08 12:40 p.m.
Of course 
acerxtroIt has been 24 hours
singhski 2024-10-08 01:16 p.m.
Since?
acerxtro 2024-10-09 03:45 p.m.
A ruling on the motions for SJ will be entered possibly tomorrow.
acerxtro 2024-10-09 03:45 p.m.
I am confident on my decision, but I’d like to have all of it in writing first.
singhski 2024-10-09 04:14 p.m.
Thanks.
DauuX 2024-10-09 05:41 p.m.
Very well
singhski 2024-10-11 02:15 a.m.@acerxtro :/
acerxtro 2024-10-11 08:59 a.m.
Today.
DauuX 2024-10-11 09:37 a.m.
Sure!
DauuX 2024-10-12 12:57 a.m.@acerxtro ?
acerxtro 2024-10-12 12:58 a.m.
I am currently writing.
acerxtro 2024-10-12 01:12 a.m.@DauuX @singhski Is it not contested that the Plaintiff was not given due process in regards to their status within the MNG?(edited)
acerxtroDauuX 2024-10-12 02:37 a.m. 
DauuX 2024-10-12 02:37 a.m. 
acerxtro 2024-10-12 03:04 a.m.
Ok
singhski 2024-10-12 09:11 a.m.@acerxtro Today?
acerxtro 2024-10-12 02:03 p.m.
the amount of unnecessary citations in these motions makes ruling upon them (and even reading) very difficult
DauuX 2024-10-12 02:07 p.m.
There arent that many
DauuXThere arent that many
acerxtro 2024-10-12 02:11 p.m.
everything highlighted is you speaking
acerxtro 2024-10-12 02:11 p.m.
everything else is a citation or a quote
acerxtroeverything highlighted is you speaking
DauuX 2024-10-12 02:21 p.m.
Well it's a response
DauuX 2024-10-12 02:22 p.m.
And this is a technical matter
acerxtro 2024-10-12 02:23 p.m.
"It is not necessary to" cite everything. Fischer v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 37 App. Div. 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 1899)(edited)
DauuX 2024-10-12 02:31 p.m.
I maintain it's not that bad
DauuX 2024-10-12 02:31 p.m.
There are pages that don't really cite anything
DauuX 2024-10-12 02:32 p.m.
But I do agree the summary could have lesd
DauuX 2024-10-12 02:32 p.m.
Less*
acerxtrothe amount of unnecessary citations in these motions makes ruling upon them (and even reading) very difficult
singhski 2024-10-12 02:39 p.m.
I hope my pleadings aren’t bothering you too much
singhskiI hope my pleadings aren’t bothering you too much
DauuX 2024-10-12 02:57 p.m.
Meanwhile the hearing
DauuX 2024-10-12 02:57 p.m.
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:38 p.m.@singhski @DauuX There is no genuine dispute of fact here
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:38 p.m.
but I am struggling to find which side is entitled to judgment as a matter of law
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:39 p.m.
because these arguments are very complex and intricate and there is no obvious, clear, or outlined winner
DauuX 2024-10-12 04:39 p.m.
I believe both of us will appeal anyway
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:39 p.m.
That is the issue
DauuX 2024-10-12 04:39 p.m.
Is there anything that needs clarifying?
DauuX 2024-10-12 04:40 p.m.
We're aware this is a delicate and complex matter
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:41 p.m.
I believe that this is a case that can definitely benefit from trial
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:42 p.m.
Summary judgment is primarily rooted upon the principal that "A movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law if evidence no reasonable jury could rule against the movant based on the facts," and this part is just not there
DauuX 2024-10-12 04:43 p.m.
So there are some facts that need to be settled
DauuX 2024-10-12 04:43 p.m.
Would you be able to give us a brief overview so that we talk them over in trial(edited)
acerxtrobecause these arguments are very complex and intricate and there is no obvious, clear, or outlined winner
singhski 2024-10-12 04:59 p.m.
Which is why this case is bound for review by the 8 justices
singhski 2024-10-12 04:59 p.m.
Going to trial won’t resolve said complex issues
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:00 p.m.
It will allow you to argue significantly better than you can in motions
singhskiWhich is why this case is bound for review by the 8 justices
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:01 p.m.
Instead of rushing to summary judgment, it is much more logical to present a more elaborative and detailed case to the initial trial court
acerxtroIt will allow you to argue significantly better than you can in motions
singhski 2024-10-12 05:01 p.m.
No, we have argued to the extent we can argue. There has been over 2 weeks of back and forth which won’t be elaborated any better within the time constraints of a trial
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:01 p.m.
rather than rushing the trial court and praying on a reversal from the supreme court(edited)
singhski 2024-10-12 05:01 p.m.
Rushing? You were meant to rule on this a week ago.
singhski 2024-10-12 05:02 p.m.
As you have said, there is no genuine dispute of fact which can be addressed at trial
singhski 2024-10-12 05:02 p.m.
Trial is redundant
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:05 p.m.
There is clearly not an obvious winner to this case
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:05 p.m.
one of the main reasons summary judgment exists is to conclude a case where a jury could not plausibly rule another way
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:07 p.m.
Cases should not go to trial if he outcome is clear, which would allow the court to decide such cases as a matter of law without wasting judicial resources on a trial.
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:07 p.m.
The outcome is not clear.
acerxtroone of the main reasons summary judgment exists is to conclude a case where a jury could not plausibly rule another way
singhski 2024-10-12 05:09 p.m.
The MAIN reason for summary judgement is when there is no genuine disputes of material fact which you have accepted.
singhski 2024-10-12 05:10 p.m.
To not grant SJ is a travesty especially after that proposition.
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:11 p.m.
"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law ." Mayfl. R. Civ. 38(a).
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:11 p.m.
Neither of you are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
singhski 2024-10-12 05:11 p.m.
Well why not?
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:12 p.m.
Do you really think there is only 1 clear, plausible outcome to this case
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:12 p.m.
to a reasonable person
singhski 2024-10-12 05:12 p.m.
Yes
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:12 p.m.
The reasonable person does not agree with you.
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:13 p.m.
Written ruling soon.
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:13 p.m.
Until then, we will continue from where we left off.
singhski 2024-10-12 05:13 p.m.
If there is property interest, there is no deprivation of rights, if there is, then there is deprivation of rights.
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:13 p.m.
Argue it in trial.
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:13 p.m.
I will not overturn my previous ruling.
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:14 p.m.
I believe we left off on discovery @singhski @DauuX
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:14 p.m.
Discovery has closed.
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:14 p.m.
Do we have any further pretrial motions?
acerxtroArgue it in trial.
singhski 2024-10-12 05:15 p.m.
Those are not trialable issues,(edited)
acerxtroDo we have any further pretrial motions?
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:15 p.m.@singhski @DauuX
singhski 2024-10-12 05:15 p.m.
Yes, motion to reconsider once you have ruled.
singhski 2024-10-12 05:27 p.m.@acerxtro can you reconsider without it being in writing? Both sides argue they are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law (whether he had a property interest to protect) both which deem a trial redundant, but only one side is entitled to SJ.
Had a property interest = summary judgment for the Plaintiff.
Did not have a property interest = summary judgment for the Defendant.(edited)
Had a property interest = summary judgment for the Plaintiff.
Did not have a property interest = summary judgment for the Defendant.(edited)
singhski 2024-10-12 05:30 p.m.
Have another Judge weigh in on the issue, perhaps they could give some valuable advice.
singhski 2024-10-12 05:30 p.m.
Judicial indecisiveness is not the bar for denying motions.
acerxtro 2024-10-12 06:35 p.m.@singhski @DauuX Unfortunately the game will not allow me to send a ruling for some odd reason
acerxtro 2024-10-12 06:35 p.m.
so I have attached such to the trello card
acerxtro 2024-10-12 06:35 p.m. CASE INFORMATION**
IN THE MAYFLOWER DISTRICT COURT FOR CLARK COUNTY
---
TDark99 v. zrihem, turbanwarfare
Trial Type: Civil
Judge Assigned: Judge acerxtro - Courtroom 107
Complaint Attached: Complaint Link
---
UPCOMING COURT DATES
```
Complai...
---
---
```
Complai...
Comments
5Labels
CivilsinghskiYes, motion to reconsider once you have ruled.
acerxtro 2024-10-12 06:37 p.m.
Let me know if you are continuing this
DauuX 2024-10-12 06:43 p.m.@acerxtro you're not the chief judge
DauuX 2024-10-12 06:44 p.m.
Im assuming its an old copy paste
DauuX 2024-10-12 06:44 p.m.
(Dont take this as some kind of an attack, just noticed it
acerxtro 2024-10-12 06:45 p.m.
oh yeah(edited)
acerxtro 2024-10-12 06:45 p.m.
Good catch @DauuX
singhski 2024-10-13 03:58 a.m.
Holy moly this might be the worst ruling I have ever read.
acerxtroLet me know if you are continuing this
singhski 2024-10-13 03:58 a.m.
I am
singhskiI am
acerxtro 2024-10-13 12:11 p.m.
Motion denied
acerxtro 2024-10-13 12:12 p.m.
The ruling is extremely straight forward, if you disagree with the SCOTUS cases presented, I encourage you to march down to the Supreme Court building and voice your opinion to the old men on the court
acerxtroThe ruling is extremely straight forward, if you disagree with the SCOTUS cases presented, I encourage you to march down to the Supreme Court building and voice your opinion to the...
singhski 2024-10-13 12:12 p.m.
It's ridden with miscitations
singhski 2024-10-13 12:24 p.m.@acerxtro So are you denying us leave to file reconsideration?
singhskiacerxtro 2024-10-13 12:28 p.m.
You can file it, but I am relatively certain that it will not be granted(edited)
DauuX 2024-10-13 03:17 p.m.@acerxtro If we're going to have trial, I ask that we begin very soon
DauuX 2024-10-13 03:18 p.m.
This case has already been delayed before
DauuXacerxtro 2024-10-13 03:18 p.m.@singhski wishes to file a motion for reconsideration
acerxtro 2024-10-13 03:18 p.m.
I am awaiting it
DauuX 2024-10-13 03:18 p.m.
Yeah, I just meant after that's submitted
DauuX 2024-10-13 03:19 p.m.
I do agree there are some stones left unturned and trial could be beneficial
DauuX 2024-10-15 04:36 a.m.@singhski where motion
acerxtro 2024-10-15 08:33 a.m.
The pretrial period has ended.
@DauuX @singhski
acerxtro 2024-10-15 08:33 a.m.
We will now move onto scheduling.
acerxtro 2024-10-15 08:33 a.m.
List availabilities for trial (coordinate with witnesses too)
acerxtrosinghski 2024-10-15 08:50 a.m.
It hasn’t even been 48 hours
acerxtroList availabilities for trial (coordinate with witnesses too)
DauuX 2024-10-15 08:55 a.m.
I should be available every day from 11 am to 5 pm EST (maybe not on Friday, I don't know yet), on Saturdays I can do 6 am to 6 pm EST
singhskiIt hasn’t even been 48 hours
acerxtro 2024-10-15 04:48 p.m.
You had 3 days
acerxtro 2024-10-15 04:48 p.m.
acerxtroYou had 3 days
singhski 2024-10-15 05:10 p.m.
ONCE YOU HAVE RULED(edited)
singhski 2024-10-15 05:10 p.m.
You didn’t rule on that day
singhskiONCE YOU HAVE RULED(edited)
acerxtro 2024-10-15 05:51 p.m.
You have 20 hours
acerxtro 2024-10-15 05:51 p.m.
No more
DauuX 2024-10-15 05:54 p.m.@acerxtro @singhski If trial does happen, can we just skip authenticating evidence
DauuXsinghski 2024-10-16 02:36 a.m.
No
acerxtro 2024-10-16 11:44 a.m.
No..
DauuX 2024-10-16 01:27 p.m.
Its additional effort and would be fine if both parties knew all the evidence was unaltered
DauuX 2024-10-16 01:28 p.m.
but alright
justind20 2024-10-16 08:42 p.m.@acerxtro The Solicitor General’s Office kindly request an extension to file our motion to reconsider. We are a 3 man team with 4 pending appeals before the Supreme Court and several District Court cases.
We don’t intend to unnecessarily delay proceedings any further, but we are stretched thin and have not had adequate time to prepare our motion. We ask for understanding from Your Honor and the Petitioner as we tackle the workload we have while also maintaining irl obligations such as school and work (which carry importance).
We don’t intend to unnecessarily delay proceedings any further, but we are stretched thin and have not had adequate time to prepare our motion. We ask for understanding from Your Honor and the Petitioner as we tackle the workload we have while also maintaining irl obligations such as school and work (which carry importance).
acerxtro 2024-10-16 08:43 p.m.
How long @justind20
justind20 2024-10-16 08:44 p.m.
72 hours if you approve, I have another attorney coming in to assist and ensure the motion is filed. As I said, we are overwhelmed.
justind2072 hours if you approve, I have another attorney coming in to assist and ensure the motion is filed. As I said, we are overwhelmed.
acerxtro 2024-10-16 08:45 p.m.
72h
@DauuX @singhski @justind20
justind20 2024-10-16 08:45 p.m.
Thank you, we appreciate it.
acerxtro 2024-10-16 08:45 p.m.
If you submit it 72h and 1m after, I will not consider it
justind20 2024-10-16 08:45 p.m.
Understood
Doogy 2024-10-18 02:34 p.m.@Deleted User Added from filed NOA (I'm just doing clerk duty and have no active interest in this case, thanks)
Doogy 2024-10-18 02:34 p.m.@acerxtro ^
acerxtro 2024-10-18 03:26 p.m.
Thanks
acerxtro 2024-10-18 09:46 p.m.@Nicklaus has been added
Nicklaus 2024-10-18 09:47 p.m.
this was filed earlier
acerxtro 2024-10-19 12:38 a.m.
Do you wish to formulate a response @DauuX
acerxtroDo you wish to formulate a response @DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-19 01:29 a.m.
I waive
Nicklausthis was filed earlier
acerxtro 2024-10-19 12:39 p.m.
Ok I will accept the motion to reconsider
@DauuX @Nicklaus @singhski
acerxtro 2024-10-19 12:39 p.m.
If either party wishes to submit additional briefing for their side, please inform me of such
acerxtro 2024-10-19 12:40 p.m.@DauuX I encourage you to do so
acerxtroDauuX 2024-10-19 12:43 p.m.
I will
acerxtroOk I will accept the motion to reconsider @DauuX @Nicklaus @singhski
singhski 2024-10-19 02:11 p.m.
By the way this is only to reconsider our motion
singhski 2024-10-19 02:12 p.m.
We aren’t doing charity work for the Plaintiff
singhski 2024-10-19 02:12 p.m.
So any supplemental briefs should be surrounding our motion and why summary judgment should or shouldn’t be granted for the Defendants
singhskiBy the way this is only to reconsider our motion
DauuX 2024-10-19 02:13 p.m.
Reconsidering your motion also means my response is reconsidered
acerxtro 2024-10-19 02:15 p.m.
Affirm
DauuXReconsidering your motion also means my response is reconsidered
singhski 2024-10-19 02:16 p.m.
Not at all, your response is however.
singhski 2024-10-19 02:16 p.m.
Unless the ruling was on both of them simultaneously(edited)
singhski 2024-10-19 02:16 p.m.
I’ve honestly forgotten what was written in it
DauuX 2024-10-19 02:16 p.m.
"also means my response is reconsidered"
DauuX 2024-10-19 02:16 p.m.
"not at all, your response is however"
DauuX 2024-10-19 02:16 p.m.
what
singhski 2024-10-19 02:16 p.m.
Oh, okay!
singhskiUnless the ruling was on both of them simultaneously(edited)
Nicklaus 2024-10-19 03:09 p.m.
they are being treated as cross-motion and motion for sj (as they should be) since it was 1 ruling for both de facto id presume
acerxtro 2024-10-20 10:00 a.m.
Update: The plaintiff is absolutely considered an employee. Myself and my amazing clerk are now moving to the next questions of law in SJ.
acerxtroUpdate: The plaintiff is absolutely considered an employee. Myself and my amazing clerk are now moving to the next questions of law in SJ.
singhski 2024-10-20 10:09 a.m.
Being an employee doesn't mean that you have an employment interest, if that were the case, Boards of Regent v Roth would be moot because Roth was definetly an employee.
singhski 2024-10-20 10:11 a.m.
Also, this is a strange request, but please take your time with this ruling, since I have exams and I would rather that time be spent studying rather than writing briefs.
singhski 2024-10-20 10:16 a.m.
(like wednesday preferably)
acerxtroUpdate: The plaintiff is absolutely considered an employee. Myself and my amazing clerk are now moving to the next questions of law in SJ.
DauuX 2024-10-20 12:07 p.m.
another SOUND judgement by this court.
DauuXanother SOUND judgement by this court.
Nicklaus 2024-10-20 12:15 p.m.
Cease the glazing, beta
acerxtroIf either party wishes to submit additional briefing for their side, please inform me of such
acerxtro 2024-10-20 03:16 p.m.
Will either party be doing this? @Nicklaus @DauuX
acerxtroWill either party be doing this? @Nicklaus @DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-20 03:17 p.m.
Well now that the Court found Plaintiff was an employee, I'd generally have to restate my argument
acerxtro 2024-10-20 03:17 p.m.
If I didn't make it clear already, the court has accepted the motion to reconsider both motions and will be doing so. The court has erred in its interpretation of "entitled to judgment as a matter of law."(edited)
DauuX 2024-10-20 03:17 p.m.
I doubt it will bring new matter
DauuX 2024-10-20 03:18 p.m.
Besides the Court may grant SJ in favour of the non-moving party, so even a reconsideration of theirs could result either way
Nicklaus 2024-10-20 03:18 p.m.
i mean i can submit additional briefing on sj to clarify our points
Nicklaus 2024-10-20 03:18 p.m.
bc im swamped with an appeal rn
Nicklaus 2024-10-20 03:18 p.m.
is there a deadline!
acerxtro 2024-10-20 03:18 p.m.
Does 2 days work
Nicklaus 2024-10-20 03:18 p.m.
sure
Nicklaus 2024-10-20 03:18 p.m.
im not sure that ill submit any but
DauuX 2024-10-20 03:18 p.m.
Yeah that does work
DauuX 2024-10-21 04:35 p.m.@acerxtro @Nicklaus @singhski
DauuX 2024-10-21 04:35 p.m.
courtesy link
singhski 2024-10-24 03:26 p.m.@acerxtro I will file the supplemental brief later tomorrow, thanks.
DauuX 2024-10-24 03:37 p.m.
The deadline was 2 days ago
DauuX 2024-10-24 03:37 p.m.
but sure
DauuX 2024-10-24 03:37 p.m.
I doubt we wouldve got a ruling before that
DauuXThe deadline was 2 days ago
singhski 2024-10-24 05:43 p.m.@acerxtro In that case, we won't be filing a supplemental brief.
singhski 2024-10-24 05:43 p.m.
Unless we get an extension, I am confident in our briefs as they stand currently.
singhskiacerxtro 2024-10-24 06:21 p.m.
File it within like 2d
singhskiUnless we get an extension, I am confident in our briefs as they stand currently.
singhski 2024-10-25 01:49 p.m.@acerxtro
singhski 2024-10-25 01:49 p.m.
I am confident in our briefs as they stand, we don't believe a supplemental brief is necessary.
singhskiI am confident in our briefs as they stand, we don't believe a supplemental brief is necessary.
acerxtro 2024-10-26 05:39 p.m.
Ok
acerxtro 2024-10-26 05:47 p.m.New Ruling
https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1279836211703447614/1299852015257518202
@singhski @justind20 @Nicklaus @DauuX (edited)
https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1279836211703447614/1299852015257518202
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:15 p.m.@singhski Do you have any case law or statutes to support these claims here? 
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:20 p.m.
I don't know if this is a miscitation of the NDA Agreement (ironic, isn't it), where the contract actually
1. "makes it so that all persons who 'willingly maintain employment'.. ..automatically consent to [the NDA's] provisions." Plaintiff's Response.
Or 2. has a checkbox or something where you have to confirm/click a box saying you wish to "willingly maintain employment with the MNG"(edited)
1. "makes it so that all persons who 'willingly maintain employment'.. ..automatically consent to [the NDA's] provisions." Plaintiff's Response.
Or 2. has a checkbox or something where you have to confirm/click a box saying you wish to "willingly maintain employment with the MNG"(edited)
acerxtroI don't know if this is a miscitation of the NDA Agreement (ironic, isn't it), where the contract actually 1. "makes it so that all persons who 'willingly maintain employment'.. ....(edited)
singhski 2024-10-26 06:44 p.m.
The “checkbox or something” is the Google form
singhski 2024-10-26 06:46 p.m.
I would have thought that much was clear by now but, woe, alas.(edited)
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:53 p.m.
Yes but like
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:53 p.m. 
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:53 p.m.---
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS
---
By willingly maintaining employment within the Mayflower National Guard all serving guardsmen consent to and affirm the following:
---
SECTION I - AFFIRMATION
_I hereby declare that this agreement is of my own free will to uphold peace and justice within the State of Mayflower and that I shall be held ...
---
By willingly maintaining employment within the Mayflower National Guard all serving guardsmen consent to and affirm the following:
---
_I hereby declare that this agreement is of my own free will to uphold peace and justice within the State of Mayflower and that I shall be held ...
Labels
OFFICIAL POLICYsinghski 2024-10-26 06:54 p.m.
Manifestation of willingly maintaining employment is created by the NDA
singhski 2024-10-26 06:54 p.m.
If I say I’m an employee of your chambers, that doesn’t make me an employee of your chambers, if I start writing your rulings, that doesn’t make me an employee of your chambers
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:54 p.m.
How is someone required to sign the NDA in order to have the property interest (or be considered an employee)
singhski 2024-10-26 06:55 p.m.
Same way, he was on deployments, does not mean he was an employee. Being an employee is laid out by the Google form
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:55 p.m.
Was the form itself admitted into discovery
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:56 p.m.
besides just the header
acerxtroHow is someone required to sign the NDA in order to have the property interest (or be considered an employee)
singhski 2024-10-26 06:56 p.m.
It’s trivial really, if you actually read the MSJ instead of trying to fault it, you will understand that the dimensions of property interests in employment have been crafted carefully by the Google form
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:56 p.m.
I read your MSJ
singhski 2024-10-26 06:56 p.m.
A property interest doesn’t come out of thin air when someone claims they have it
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:56 p.m.
But I do not understand how the NDA is the sole decider of the property interest
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:56 p.m.
Correct
acerxtroBut I do not understand how the NDA is the sole decider of the property interest
singhski 2024-10-26 06:57 p.m.
Because property interests are created by contracts or state law
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:57 p.m.
I do not contest that
singhski 2024-10-26 06:57 p.m.
The Google form is that employment contract
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:58 p.m.
I think it is this sentence that is making me scratch my head
To break this down, to have a “constitutionally protected property interest in [your] employment” you must sign the NDA and affirm that you wish to “willingly maintain employment with the MNG”.
To break this down, to have a “constitutionally protected property interest in [your] employment” you must sign the NDA and affirm that you wish to “willingly maintain employment with the MNG”.
singhski 2024-10-26 06:58 p.m.
He did not sign that, and thus can not have a unilateral expectation
singhskiThe Google form is that employment contract
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:58 p.m.
One's entire employment hinges on the NDA?
acerxtroOne's entire employment hinges on the NDA?
singhski 2024-10-26 07:00 p.m.
Correct, I have provided instances where it was common practice that employment prospects are denied when the prospect fails to sign the NDA
singhski 2024-10-26 07:00 p.m.
GO#8 essentially lays out the bare bones structure of what that NDA stipulates
singhskiCorrect, I have provided instances where it was common practice that employment prospects are denied when the prospect fails to sign the NDA
singhski 2024-10-26 07:01 p.m.
Prime example of that is Turban announcement
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:01 p.m.
I would believe GO#8 is different from the NDA
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:01 p.m.
Since GO#8 is on all the agreements
singhski 2024-10-26 07:01 p.m.
Yes
singhskiCorrect, I have provided instances where it was common practice that employment prospects are denied when the prospect fails to sign the NDA
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:02 p.m.
I agree that someone can be punished for failing to sign it
singhski 2024-10-26 07:02 p.m.
But the NDA is needed to manifest both the willingness of the employee and the recognition that they have read the defense policy and will abide by it and the recognition of the agency that they are hiring the prospect as an employee
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:03 p.m.
I would have liked to have seen the entire NDA form
acerxtroI agree that someone can be punished for failing to sign it
singhski 2024-10-26 07:03 p.m.
Command was unable to do it earlier because Etsuzo hired the Plaintiff secretly
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:03 p.m.
as it was on August 27th, 2024
singhskiBut the NDA is needed to manifest both the willingness of the employee and the recognition that they have read the defense policy and will abide by it and the recognition of the ag...
singhski 2024-10-26 07:04 p.m.
Very clearly the aspects of the NDA are not met by the conversation (which does not equate to an implied contract) between Etsuzo and the Plaintiff because the defense policy was sent after he agreed he would abide by said policy
singhski 2024-10-26 07:05 p.m.
We aren’t talking about terms of services here, we are talking about employment contracts, the two are extremely distinct in nature.
singhskiCommand was unable to do it earlier because Etsuzo hired the Plaintiff secretly
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:06 p.m.
Here's the problem that this presents though
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:06 p.m.
if the employee has no way of knowing about or accessing the NDA
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:06 p.m.
and, as such, cannot sign it
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:06 p.m.
then an employer can just keep the NDA secret and fire people for whatever
acerxtrothen an employer can just keep the NDA secret and fire people for whatever
singhski 2024-10-26 07:07 p.m.
Then the Plaintiff can sue them for that as they have intentionally hid the NDA
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:07 p.m.
because they never signed the NDA and have no constitutionally protected property interest in their employment (under this logic)
singhski 2024-10-26 07:07 p.m.
In this case, Etsuzo isn’t the Defendant.
singhski 2024-10-26 07:08 p.m.
Due process claims can not come to fruition here because there was no constitutionally protected property interest.
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:09 p.m.
I'll have to reread Loudermill , because there are similarities with the facts in both cases,
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:09 p.m.
mainly in that both people should not have been hired in the first place
acerxtromainly in that both people should not have been hired in the first place
singhski 2024-10-26 07:10 p.m.
Here’s the counter argument or counter thesis I would combat that with: what if you rule in favour of the Plaintiff and employers, who may be friends with the employee, don’t provide the form to the employee. In that hypothetical ruling, the employee has absolute immunity from adverse action.(edited)
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:10 p.m.
Well I wouldn't be saying they get to walk
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:11 p.m.
they would just get the opportunity to defend themselves (due process)
acerxtrothey would just get the opportunity to defend themselves (due process)
singhski 2024-10-26 07:11 p.m.
Right but what gives them the unilateral expectation of continued employment?
singhski 2024-10-26 07:11 p.m.
It can’t just be a repeatedly made contention, it has to be backed up with evidence from a contract or state law.
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:12 p.m.
I still have a considerable amount of research on this case to do, but I would assume the existence of the policies contributes some form of expectation
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:12 p.m.
if the policies state "You can be fired for X, Y, and Z," one would reasonably assume their employment isn't at-will
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:12 p.m.
I think DauuX made the same argument in their motion
acerxtroif the policies state "You can be fired for X, Y, and Z," one would reasonably assume their employment isn't at-will
singhski 2024-10-26 07:13 p.m.
If the policy is to be construed as a contract, there is a waiver of the due process rights anyways.
singhski 2024-10-26 07:13 p.m.
In GO#8
singhski 2024-10-26 07:13 p.m.
You can’t sign an employment contract before even receiving it.
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:13 p.m.
I don't know valid contracts beginning with "By willingly maintaining employment.." are but
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:13 p.m.
since silence =/= acceptance
singhski 2024-10-26 07:15 p.m.
I’d refer you back to my previous hypothetical scenario I provided you, if I say that I am your clerk, abide by your chambers’ policies and do all the work, does that make me your employee?
singhski 2024-10-26 07:15 p.m.
I could only be your clerk if you hire me explicitly
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:15 p.m.
If I accepted you into the group and you operate under the Courts
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:15 p.m.
yes
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:15 p.m.
if someone just starts adding people to my cases (like shah_khaled), then no
singhski 2024-10-26 07:16 p.m.
In the same way, the Plaintiff can operate as a Guardsman, doesn’t mean he is/was.
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:16 p.m.
If I steal an R21M and prance about in a guardsmen outfit, then no
singhski 2024-10-26 07:16 p.m.
There’s no unilateral expectation of continued employment beyond what is expressly stipulated by state law or a contract. That’s the bottom line.
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:16 p.m.
but if I am accepted into the group, I think any reasonable person would conclude that I am an employee
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:17 p.m.
as I would work for the MNG then
acerxtrobut if I am accepted into the group, I think any reasonable person would conclude that I am an employee
singhski 2024-10-26 07:17 p.m.
The word “employee” has its own nuances. Without a contract, you can’t assume your employment isn’t at-will or temporary.
singhski 2024-10-26 07:18 p.m.
Technically his employment was whatever MNG says it was since those were the circumstances he was hired in
singhski 2024-10-26 07:18 p.m.
MNG says he wasn’t supposed to be an employee, so he was dishonourably discharged.
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:19 p.m.
and we are absolutely positive that there were no employment rights or laws in place during this time
acerxtroand we are absolutely positive that there were no employment rights or laws in place during this time
singhski 2024-10-26 07:20 p.m.
Yes
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:20 p.m.
and we must use this archaic process
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:20 p.m.
ok
acerxtroBut I do not understand how the NDA is the sole decider of the property interest
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:20 p.m.
On God.
singhskiHere’s the counter argument or counter thesis I would combat that with: what if you rule in favour of the Plaintiff and employers, who may be friends with the employee, don’t provi...(edited)
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:22 p.m.
That'a nonsense
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:22 p.m.
He was required to consent to all employment policies and that includes GO#8
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:22 p.m.
There's no reason to assume it's any less binding
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:22 p.m.
cc @acerxtro
acerxtroI think DauuX made the same argument in their motion
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:23 p.m.
I did, yes
DauuXHe was required to consent to all employment policies and that includes GO#8
singhski 2024-10-26 07:23 p.m.
Without knowing about the existence of said employment policies
singhski 2024-10-26 07:24 p.m.
This is damaging to the judicial economy even, if we keep entertaining litigants who don’t read their employment contracts, our judicial system would slow down tremendously.
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:24 p.m.
Whether he read it or not is irrelevant
singhski 2024-10-26 07:24 p.m.
It is
singhski 2024-10-26 07:24 p.m.
You are comparing an employment contract with terms of services
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:25 p.m.
Not by any existimg standard
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:25 p.m.
existing*
singhskiThis is damaging to the judicial economy even, if we keep entertaining litigants who don’t read their employment contracts, our judicial system would slow down tremendously.
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:25 p.m.
The law does very little to protect those who fail to read their own contracts and sign anyway
singhski 2024-10-26 07:25 p.m.
There is a reason why IRL federal and state courts have made those two distinct
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:25 p.m.
Also, we need not assess the "by willingly maintaining" clause, as consent was explicitly expressed
acerxtroThe law does very little to protect those who fail to read their own contracts and sign anyway
singhski 2024-10-26 07:25 p.m.
You unfounded the proposition that the conversation was a contract yourself at the hearing
singhski 2024-10-26 07:25 p.m.
The standard used for a contract was not met
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:25 p.m.
Not true..?
singhski 2024-10-26 07:26 p.m.
Completely true
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:26 p.m.
Acer literally said a contract was made, but that it wasn't supposed to happen
singhski 2024-10-26 07:26 p.m.@acerxtro If you will recall, you said a contract was made, but then said the 5th prong was not met due to the Plaintiffs actions.
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:26 p.m.
The Discord DMs between the 2 are not black and white
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:27 p.m.
“To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth , 408 U.S. 564 (1972).
acerxtro“To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, i...
singhski 2024-10-26 07:28 p.m.
Precisely, so this claim is unravelled completely if the Court finds these two things; (a) the NDA is how the Plaintiff can obtain a legitimate claim of entitlement to it and (b) the conversation was not a contract
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:30 p.m.
Can I see what the NDA form stated
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:30 p.m.
because I don't think that was an employment contract
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:30 p.m.
I think that was just a non disclosure agreement
singhskisinghski 2024-10-26 07:30 p.m.
Which is manifestation of abidance with the contract, if that manifestation does not exist, it suggests that the contract did not have a binding effect on the Plaintiff.
singhski 2024-10-26 07:30 p.m.
That much can be inferred from the nature of the conversation anyways, we need to bare in mind these are two friends.
acerxtroI think that was just a non disclosure agreement
singhski 2024-10-26 07:31 p.m.
MNGs practices and understandings recognise that when that form is signed, the employee has his employment rights completely intact.
singhski 2024-10-26 07:31 p.m.
It should be in the discovery
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:31 p.m.
Thats bollocks
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:31 p.m.
We subpoenad the form but it wasnt provided
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:32 p.m.
It is not
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:32 p.m.
yeah
singhski 2024-10-26 07:32 p.m.
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:32 p.m.
It wasnt a fully fledged contract by any means
singhskisinghski 2024-10-26 07:32 p.m.
At the moment this is all I have
singhski 2024-10-26 07:33 p.m.
Look at the title, it is not just a NDA
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:33 p.m.
actually before I post the link to that NDA
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:33 p.m.
Does either party have any objections to sealing this case channel(edited)
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:33 p.m.
so the average joe does not spam the form
singhski 2024-10-26 07:34 p.m.
singhski 2024-10-26 07:34 p.m.
also read the description
acerxtroDoes either party have any objections to sealing this case channel(edited)
singhski 2024-10-26 07:34 p.m.
No, I do not.
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:34 p.m.
ok so this is not just an NDA
acerxtrook so this is not just an NDA
singhski 2024-10-26 07:34 p.m.
Yes, agreements PLURAL.
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:35 p.m.
Form asks for information about user + this
singhskiYes, agreements PLURAL.
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:35 p.m.
Ok
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:35 p.m.
so did you mean the property interest isn't contingent on someone signing the NDA
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:35 p.m.
and should be contingent on someone signing all of these forms
acerxtroand should be contingent on someone signing all of these forms
singhski 2024-10-26 07:36 p.m.
Yes, also in my MSJ I have cited an opinion which states that rules or understandings (of the agency) can be used to determine property interests
singhski 2024-10-26 07:36 p.m.
The understanding was that a prospect who does not sign that form is not an employee
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:37 p.m.
If this guy was told to sign the form that would be one thing
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:38 p.m.
but this guy seemingly had no knowledge that it existed
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:38 p.m.
What does that mean? I don't know, but it's not good for this case
acerxtrobut this guy seemingly had no knowledge that it existed
singhski 2024-10-26 07:38 p.m.
And that wasn’t the fault of Turban or Zrihem
singhski 2024-10-26 07:38 p.m.
Turban and Zrihem were simply doing their jobs and removed someone who was never actually a recognised employee
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:39 p.m.
He was recognized
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:39 p.m.
Maybe not by those 2
singhski 2024-10-26 07:39 p.m.
Those two are the only that matter
singhski 2024-10-26 07:39 p.m.
Zrihem was the Major General
singhski 2024-10-26 07:40 p.m.
Whosoever he recognises as an employee must be an employee, because his understanding is, prescribed by his duties, the understanding of the agency.
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:41 p.m.
Well not every employee needs Zrihem's expressed recognition to be considered an employee
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:41 p.m.
Zrihem doesn't have that ability
acerxtroWell not every employee needs Zrihem's expressed recognition to be considered an employee
singhski 2024-10-26 07:42 p.m.
They are given expressed recognition when employers mention who they recruited to department command
singhski 2024-10-26 07:43 p.m.
Perhaps even some due diligence could have been done on the Plaintiffs part, he had access to the form, albeit it was closed, and could have mentioned that to Etsuzo.
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:44 p.m.
Was the plaintiff ever informed about the form
acerxtroWas the plaintiff ever informed about the form
singhski 2024-10-26 07:44 p.m.
The whole Guard was, I’d expect new employees would scroll up the announcements channel, I doubt that he didn’t see the form until arbitration.
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:45 p.m.
I don't think new employees are obligated to scroll through and read the entire contents of an announcement channel upon their hiring
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:45 p.m.
nor expected
acerxtroI don't think new employees are obligated to scroll through and read the entire contents of an announcement channel upon their hiring
singhski 2024-10-26 07:45 p.m.
They aren’t, but we’re talking about whether he saw it or not. The chances he didn’t are very low.
singhskiThe whole Guard was, I’d expect new employees would scroll up the announcements channel, I doubt that he didn’t see the form until arbitration.
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:46 p.m.
The plaintiff was not part of the guard at that time (according to the plaintiff's counsel)(edited)
acerxtroThe plaintiff was not part of the guard at that time (according to the plaintiff's counsel)(edited)
singhski 2024-10-26 07:46 p.m.
He wasn’t, but the message was sent 2 days prior to him joining.
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:46 p.m.
Where he was not present
singhski 2024-10-26 07:47 p.m.
Sure, but if he opened the announcement channel, he would see the form highlighted by the ping
singhski 2024-10-26 07:47 p.m.
Since it would have been a more recent announcement
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:47 p.m.
He would not have received the ping if it was done before he was roled
singhski 2024-10-26 07:47 p.m.
Either way I’d rather not delve into that
singhskiPrecisely, so this claim is unravelled completely if the Court finds these two things; (a) the NDA is how the Plaintiff can obtain a legitimate claim of entitlement to it and (b) t...
singhski 2024-10-26 07:47 p.m.
The crux of the issue is this
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:48 p.m.
we are rebranding NDA to the employment agreement, correct?
singhski 2024-10-26 07:48 p.m.
Yes
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:48 p.m.
Ok
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:49 p.m.
The court is still considering this matter and isn't expected to have a ruling until Friday at the earliest
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:49 p.m.
I expect this case to be appealed no matter which way I rule, even if I try to rule the "correct" or "right" way here
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:50 p.m.
hopefully this issue will never need to be revisited due to this state actually having employment laws
acerxtrobut this guy seemingly had no knowledge that it existed
DauuX 2024-10-26 08:16 p.m.
Also the form was due before he was employed
DauuX 2024-10-26 08:18 p.m.
Also that contract is hardly binding
DauuX 2024-10-26 08:19 p.m.
It doesn't require employees to consent to the Defense Policy
DauuXIt doesn't require employees to consent to the Defense Policy
singhski 2024-10-27 09:13 a.m.
It requires employees to consent to parts of the DP they can consent to.
singhski 2024-10-27 09:17 a.m.
The parts of the DP they can consent to, they must consent to.
singhski 2024-10-27 09:17 a.m.
Your country doesn't require you to consent to their laws, which is why consent to the DP does not constitute employment.
singhski 2024-10-27 09:18 a.m.
An absurd proposition. It is imposed, but certain parts have to have a degree of consent because they involve specific rights of the employee.
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:20 a.m.
You're lost
acerxtroThe court is still considering this matter and isn't expected to have a ruling until Friday at the earliest
singhski 2024-10-27 09:20 a.m.
If this ruling could be expedited, I would greatly appreciate it.
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:20 a.m.
An employer cannot burden you with policies you didn't agree to
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:21 a.m.
Unless you agreed to him making such policies
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:21 a.m.
Comparison to countries is quite silly
DauuXAn employer cannot burden you with policies you didn't agree to
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:22 a.m.
Part of every contract is the mutual understanding (and often expressed condent) to be bound by policies
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:22 a.m.
consent*
DauuXPart of every contract is the mutual understanding (and often expressed condent) to be bound by policies
singhski 2024-10-27 09:23 a.m.
Exactly. That mutual understanding was not manifested when the Plaintiff disobeyed orders. The whole of the 5th prong is not applied unless the contract itself is being questioned, which it is.
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:24 a.m.
Also this Court has already found that Plaintiff was an employee; the only relevant question is whether there was more than a unilateral expectation of continued employment
singhskiExactly. That mutual understanding was not manifested when the Plaintiff disobeyed orders. The whole of the 5th prong is not applied unless the contract itself is being questioned,...
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:24 a.m.
Breaking a contract does not invalidate its existence..
singhski 2024-10-27 09:24 a.m.
There was not, since there was no contract to create that "unilateral expectation".
DauuXBreaking a contract does not invalidate its existence..
singhski 2024-10-27 09:24 a.m.
Read what I said.
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:24 a.m.
I did
singhski 2024-10-27 09:24 a.m.
You didn't.
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:25 a.m.
I'm quite sure I did
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:25 a.m.
Anyway I'm not going to argue with you because there's just no use
singhski 2024-10-27 09:25 a.m.
I'm not saying that its existence is being invalidated, there is such things such as breach of contract. We are questioning whether there was a contract, and a contract requires mutual understanding, if that mutual understanding is not manifested, it can be safely assumed that that contract had no binding effect on the Plaintiff.
acerxtrowe are rebranding NDA to the employment agreement, correct?
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:26 a.m.
An employment agreement that doesnt contain any provision you'd be bound by the whole Defense Policy, yet you are
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:26 a.m.
That agreement is not a lawful contract, consideration is lacking there
DauuXThat agreement is not a lawful contract, consideration is lacking there
singhski 2024-10-27 09:26 a.m.
Well then that destroys your argument further, if there are no contracts, no one has a unilateral expectation of continued employment.
singhskiI'm not saying that its existence is being invalidated, there is such things such as breach of contract. We are questioning whether there was a contract, and a contract requires mu...
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:27 a.m.
And Plaintiff clearly agreeing to the DP wasnt manifestation at all
DauuXAnd Plaintiff clearly agreeing to the DP wasnt manifestation at all
singhski 2024-10-27 09:27 a.m.
The Plaintiff recklessly shooting an Officer after disobeying officers definitely was not manifestation.(edited)
singhskiWell then that destroys your argument further, if there are no contracts, no one has a unilateral expectation of continued employment.
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:27 a.m.
It literally helps it because then it means all the contracts are implied
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:27 a.m.
And so is this one
DauuXIt literally helps it because then it means all the contracts are implied
singhski 2024-10-27 09:27 a.m.
Sure, the others are implied because the DP was sent to them BEFORE they agreed to it
singhski 2024-10-27 09:28 a.m.
this is an employment contract, not terms of services
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:28 a.m.
You'd have to prove that
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:28 a.m.
Which you didn't
singhski 2024-10-27 09:28 a.m.
I have
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:28 a.m.
No
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:28 a.m.
You didnt provide evidence that all (or a large part) of employees hired in similar circumstances were treated any differently
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:29 a.m.
What you provided was one or two pieces of evidence, hardly a showing of procedure or custom
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:29 a.m.
Anyway toodles
singhski 2024-10-27 09:30 a.m.
It would really help if the Defendants didn't keep leaving
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:30 a.m.
We'll wait for the ruling
singhski 2024-10-27 09:30 a.m.
Okay, just so you know, ad-hominem insults aren't going to fool the literati on the Supreme Court. I don't use them against you, and I don't appreciate when you use them against me.
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:31 a.m.
What ad hominem
singhskiOkay, just so you know, ad-hominem insults aren't going to fool the literati on the Supreme Court. I don't use them against you, and I don't appreciate when you use them against me...
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:33 a.m.
If you mean "toodles," then that means bye
DauuXIf you mean "toodles," then that means bye
singhski 2024-10-27 09:33 a.m.
No.
DauuXYou're lost
singhski 2024-10-27 09:33 a.m.
.
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:34 a.m.
Ah! I stand by that statement
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:34 a.m.
I fail to see the coherence
DauuXI fail to see the coherence
singhski 2024-10-27 09:35 a.m.
Me too, it's a random stray completely unnecessary to your argument.
singhski 2024-10-27 09:35 a.m.
All it shows is that your argument is fallacious.
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:35 a.m. 
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:36 a.m.
I rest my case
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:36 a.m.
Its the same story all around
singhski 2024-10-27 09:37 a.m.
Fools too think alike.
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:38 a.m.
Contempt!
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:38 a.m.
and ad hominem :(
DauuXand ad hominem :(
singhski 2024-10-27 09:38 a.m.
It's what happens when person B uses ad hominem, person A retaliates. I thought you would know what follows an ad hominem attack.
singhski 2024-10-27 09:39 a.m.
(also I'm person A because I'm right :P)
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:39 a.m.
I'd expect you to be the better man if you lecture me
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:39 a.m.
Otherwise it's quite hypocritical
singhski 2024-10-27 09:39 a.m.
It's an inevitability with ad hominem.
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:39 a.m.
No, you're just looking for excuses
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:39 a.m.
:P
singhski 2024-10-27 09:40 a.m.
OK
acerxtroThe court is still considering this matter and isn't expected to have a ruling until Friday at the earliest
singhski 2024-10-27 09:44 a.m.
With this, we've had over 2 weeks of deliberation on the motions, it shouldn't take too long.
singhskiYour country doesn't require you to consent to their laws, which is why consent to the DP does not constitute employment.
acerxtro 2024-10-27 10:32 a.m.
I don’t understand the argument here.
My country (the US) doesn’t require me to consent to its laws. That doesn’t mean I’m not a member of it (a citizen.)
My country (the US) doesn’t require me to consent to its laws. That doesn’t mean I’m not a member of it (a citizen.)
acerxtroI don’t understand the argument here. My country (the US) doesn’t require me to consent to its laws. That doesn’t mean I’m not a member of it (a citizen.)
singhski 2024-10-27 10:50 a.m.
It's exactly what you have wrote
singhski 2024-10-27 10:50 a.m.
The US doesn't require you to consent to its laws, doesn't mean you're not a citizen
singhski 2024-10-27 10:50 a.m.
MNG doesn't require you to consent to it specific policies, doesn't mean you're not an employee because you haven't consented to those specific policies
singhskiMNG doesn't require you to consent to it specific policies, doesn't mean you're not an employee because you haven't consented to those specific policies
acerxtro 2024-10-27 11:36 a.m.
I thought this was the direct opposite of what you were arguing
DauuX 2024-10-27 11:57 a.m.
acerxtro 2024-10-30 08:04 p.m.
My clerk and I are still preparing the ruling and conducting research
acerxtroMy clerk and I are still preparing the ruling and conducting research
DauuX 2024-10-31 06:24 a.m.
no way this guy is ur clerk
DauuX 2024-10-31 06:24 a.m.@Evexom traitor
Nicklaus 2024-10-31 08:22 a.m.
umm that gentleman is also employed by the doj
Nicklaus 2024-10-31 08:22 a.m.
there seems to be some CONCERNING conflicts here
acerxtro 2024-10-31 09:19 a.m.
will be wary of such
DauuX 2024-10-31 09:27 a.m.
God bless
DauuX 2024-11-03 06:56 p.m.
Hello
DauuX 2024-11-03 06:56 p.m.@acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-03 09:56 p.m.
Hello
acerxtro 2024-11-03 09:56 p.m.
I promise we are not Arthur_Chen’ing
acerxtroI promise we are not Arthur_Chen’ing
singhski 2024-11-05 11:32 a.m.
ugh
DauuX 2024-11-09 11:13 a.m.
Just realised mr singh has confirmed he'd tried to drown all of us in paperwork
DauuX 2024-11-09 11:13 a.m.
despite his continued assurances that he wasnt running us in circles
DauuX 2024-11-09 11:13 a.m.
DauuXJust realised mr singh has confirmed he'd tried to drown all of us in paperwork
singhski 2024-11-09 11:51 a.m.
?
acerxtro 2024-11-09 04:51 p.m.
this was completely inaccurate
acerxtro 2024-11-09 04:51 p.m.
The court will have a final deadline of next Friday for a ruling
acerxtro 2024-11-09 05:10 p.m.
willing will be expedited for this case btw
@DauuX @singhski
acerxtroThe court will have a final deadline of next Friday for a ruling
DauuX 2024-11-09 05:17 p.m.
We dropped libel
acerxtro 2024-11-09 05:17 p.m.
yeah
acerxtrowilling will be expedited for this case btw @DauuX @singhski
singhski 2024-11-11 03:53 p.m.
please
DauuX 2024-11-13 05:39 a.m.@acerxtro
Typical 2024-11-13 01:22 p.m.
Fax^
singhski 2024-11-13 01:38 p.m.
Let not sloth dim your honors new begot
singhski 2024-11-13 01:39 p.m.
to borrow from Shakespeare
acerxtro 2024-11-13 04:38 p.m.
ruling due in 2d and the court is still perusing through arguments from the defense
singhski 2024-11-15 04:19 p.m.@acerxtro today
singhskiacerxtro 2024-11-15 10:26 p.m.
acerxtro 2024-11-15 10:26 p.m.
I did say today
acerxtroI did say today
singhski 2024-11-16 08:45 a.m.
You said today like 3 weeks ago as well, yet here we are
singhski 2024-11-16 08:46 a.m.
not a good look on you
acerxtro 2024-11-16 12:19 p.m.@singhski @DauuX ex parte 
acerxtro 2024-11-16 12:43 p.m.@singhski @DauuX Which counts are still in use here
acerxtro 2024-11-16 12:43 p.m.
I know libel isn't
acerxtroDauuX 2024-11-16 12:44 p.m.
Only libel was dropped
DauuX 2024-11-16 12:44 p.m.
And from relief we dropped reinstatement
acerxtro 2024-11-16 12:45 p.m.
Ok
DauuXOnly libel was dropped
acerxtro 2024-11-16 12:45 p.m.
What about removal of records
acerxtroWhat about removal of records
DauuX 2024-11-16 12:47 p.m.
I'm fairly certain they've been removed anyway by zrihem who tried to conceal it
DauuX 2024-11-16 12:47 p.m.
But if anything from that discharge and blacklist remains, that ought to be removed
acerxtro 2024-11-16 12:50 p.m.@DauuX 100k for punitive is a little steep
acerxtroDauuX 2024-11-16 12:50 p.m.
Well you can lower it
DauuX 2024-11-16 12:51 p.m.
100k is what the statute allows
acerxtro 2024-11-16 12:58 p.m.@DauuX @singhski
@Typical
@zrihem (this guy left) @turbanwarfare (this guy also left)
@zrihem (this guy left) @turbanwarfare (this guy also left)
acerxtro 2024-11-16 12:58 p.m.
acerxtro 2024-11-16 12:58 p.m.
ruling out hooray
acerxtro 2024-11-16 12:59 p.m.@singhski I believe you talked a little about state SCs usually creating precedent for their states over matters such as these
acerxtro 2024-11-16 12:59 p.m.
I have included a recommendation for appeal, as I believe the contents of this case are relatively interesting and intricate, and the SC should take a look into them(edited)
DauuX 2024-11-16 01:02 p.m.
God bless
DauuX 2024-11-16 01:02 p.m.
I don't really see a need for that
DauuX 2024-11-16 01:02 p.m.
The case is rather moot because of PSA
DauuX 2024-11-16 01:03 p.m.
And the law and precedent is clear in plaintiff's circumstances
singhski 2024-11-16 01:36 p.m.@acerxtro @DauuX we do intend to appeal
DauuX 2024-11-16 01:37 p.m.
Yes of that I was certain
acerxtro 2024-11-16 01:37 p.m.
Same here
shah 2024-11-17 02:20 p.m. CASE INFORMATION**
IN THE MAYFLOWER DISTRICT COURT FOR CLARK COUNTY
---
TDark99 v. zrihem, turbanwarfare
Trial Type: Civil
Judge Assigned: Judge acerxtro - Courtroom 107
Complaint Attached: Complaint Link
---
UPCOMING COURT DATES
```
Complai...
Can you upload the ruling when you have the time:
https://trello.com/c/UNTXcw4L/59-tdark99-v-zrihem-et-al
https://trello.com/c/UNTXcw4L/59-tdark99-v-zrihem-et-al
---
---
```
Complai...
Comments
5Labels
Civilshah 2024-11-17 02:20 p.m.@acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-17 02:55 p.m.
Yep
acerxtro 2024-11-17 02:59 p.m.
Done @shah
shah 2024-11-17 03:00 p.m.
ty
acerxtro 2024-11-19 12:32 a.m.@singhski status on ordered relief &/ petition
singhski 2024-11-20 12:28 p.m.@acerxtro I'm going to motion to reconsider
singhski 2024-11-20 12:28 p.m.
first
singhski 2024-11-20 12:30 p.m.
because my petition raises some new arguments, and I'd like to ensure the lower court was presented with these arguments before I petition
singhski 2024-11-20 12:53 p.m.
Cc: @acerxtro , @DauuX
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jvvkOxHa_pexAIAq-EQFuJnXkkhVdSF9/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jvvkOxHa_pexAIAq-EQFuJnXkkhVdSF9/view?usp=sharing
singhski 2024-11-20 12:54 p.m.
We believe that while yes, you were right about some things, with all things considered, the plaintiff's claims still are unfounded.
singhskiacerxtro 2024-11-20 03:10 p.m.
I encourage you to appeal instead
acerxtro 2024-11-20 03:10 p.m.
but
acerxtro 2024-11-20 03:10 p.m.@DauuX do you wish to file a response to the motion
acerxtroI encourage you to appeal instead
singhski 2024-11-20 03:35 p.m.
I will. Read my reasoning above.
acerxtroDauuX 2024-11-20 04:01 p.m.
Lowkey don't have the time
DauuX 2024-11-20 04:01 p.m.
I've got my chemistry olympiad this Saturday and I'd rather spend time on that
DauuX 2024-11-20 04:23 p.m.
actually my response is as follows
DauuX 2024-11-20 04:24 p.m.
the Guard’s disciplinary policy explicitly authorizes terminationat-will and reckless use of equipment.for insubordination
DauuX 2024-11-20 04:24 p.m.
if something is "at will" but also for a cause (here, insubordination), it is not at will
DauuX 2024-11-20 04:25 p.m.
its called the "zero tolerance policy", meaning these always result in a dishonourable discharge--but there are causes to that
DauuX 2024-11-20 04:26 p.m.
furthermore. when there is no explicit contractual agreement (such as here), an employer's policy can be considered terms of employment. especially here: absent such interpretation, there is no consideration and the Guard is unlawfully enforcing its standards upon employees
DauuX 2024-11-20 04:27 p.m.
the policy contains a key element of a contract: consideration. an employee gives up their time to complete the military service log weekly, and abide by the policy, and the Guard provides him with equipment, salary, benefits and so on. but only if the policy is seen as that
DauuX 2024-11-20 04:27 p.m.
The Guard’s policies do the opposite, explicitly permitting termination under the circumstances presented.
DauuX 2024-11-20 04:29 p.m.
though the motion may be granted, as it's asking this Court to "vacate the TRO" (whatever that TRO is)
DauuX 2024-11-20 04:29 p.m.@singhski @acerxtro
DauuX 2024-11-20 04:29 p.m. 
DauuXif something is "at will" but also for a cause (here, insubordination), it is not at will
singhski 2024-11-21 01:55 a.m.
At-will employment can have cause, but it doesn't require it.
singhski 2024-11-21 01:56 a.m.
and the rest of your argument I really don't know what you're talking about
singhski 2024-11-21 01:56 a.m.
I don't think you know either
DauuXClick to see attachment.
singhski 2024-11-21 01:57 a.m.@acerxtro Clerical error, but I think I have made it more than clear what we're motioning this Court to do.
singhski 2024-11-21 02:02 a.m.
Honestly, one google search will tell you about the at-will-employment-doctrine
singhskiHonestly, one google search will tell you about the at-will-employment-doctrine
DauuX 2024-11-21 03:02 a.m.
So the employer has to establish just cause such as insubordination....
DauuXSo the employer has to establish just cause such as insubordination....
singhski 2024-11-21 08:46 a.m.
Don’t HAVE to.(edited)
singhski 2024-11-21 08:47 a.m.
“without having to establish “just cause””
DauuX 2024-11-21 08:49 a.m.
I'm saying the emoloyer here needed to establish insubordination to apply the policy...
DauuX 2024-11-21 08:49 a.m.
Making it the opposite of at will
DauuX 2024-11-21 08:49 a.m.
employer*
DauuXI'm saying the emoloyer here needed to establish insubordination to apply the policy...
singhski 2024-11-21 08:50 a.m.
No… they can terminate him for any reason, the reason they chose was “unfit for service”.
singhski 2024-11-21 08:50 a.m.
They don’t need to establish anything in at-will terminations, I’m explaining the thought process behind it.
singhskiNo… they can terminate him for any reason, the reason they chose was “unfit for service”.
DauuX 2024-11-21 08:51 a.m.
According to..?
DauuXAccording to..?
singhski 2024-11-21 08:51 a.m.
Do you know how at-will works?
DauuX 2024-11-21 08:51 a.m.
According to what is he at will?
singhski 2024-11-21 08:51 a.m.
So long as it’s not illegal, they can terminate it for whatever.
singhski 2024-11-21 08:51 a.m.
According to what is he not?
DauuX 2024-11-21 08:51 a.m.
The policy
singhski 2024-11-21 08:51 a.m.
Cite
singhski 2024-11-21 08:51 a.m.
what gives him tenure
singhski 2024-11-21 08:52 a.m.
In the policy
DauuX 2024-11-21 08:53 a.m.
It says you can be discharged for a few reasons, I think I need not cite that. The fundamental rule at common law is that expressing one (or a few items) intrinsically means the exclusion of others of that category; i.e. , stating reasons why one can be discharged means one cannot be discharged for other reasons
singhski 2024-11-21 08:53 a.m.
Employment remains at will without a contract which says otherwise
DauuX 2024-11-21 08:54 a.m.
And if policy is not binding as a contractual agreement here, then there is not a single person legally employed in the Guard
DauuX 2024-11-21 08:54 a.m.
Or there was not at the time, since PSA exists now
singhski 2024-11-21 08:54 a.m.
At will employment is still legal
singhski 2024-11-21 08:54 a.m.
..?
DauuX 2024-11-21 08:54 a.m.
Nobody is saying it isnt...?
DauuXIt says you can be discharged for a few reasons, I think I need not cite that. The fundamental rule at common law is that expressing one (or a few items) intrinsically means the ex...
DauuX 2024-11-21 08:54 a.m.
this is the "more than the unilateral expectation" of continued employment
DauuX 2024-11-21 08:55 a.m.
anyway no need to argue anymore
DauuX 2024-11-21 08:55 a.m.
you've not changed your mind despite my and acer's best efforts, it won't change now either
singhski 2024-11-21 08:59 a.m.
Chief Justice EnforcementBeyond once said: “Either you have a slam dunk, or you have a pot you are brewing to confuse me and get me to rule in your favor when you are the one whos wrong.”. Every litigator does this. I admit previously I was the one with the pot, now it’s abundantly clear who has it.
singhski 2024-11-21 09:00 a.m.@acerxtro I would appreciate if you rule on this quickly
singhskiacerxtro 2024-11-21 09:53 a.m.
That's likely not going to happen
acerxtro 2024-11-21 09:53 a.m.
you are presenting more complicated issues out of the blue, which requires a shitton of research and backtracking
acerxtro 2024-11-21 09:54 a.m.
I've already given a ruling and you have already petitioned to the SC; considering the MTR is on the bottom ring of my priorities list. I have other cases to tend to(edited)
singhskiChief Justice EnforcementBeyond once said: “Either you have a slam dunk, or you have a pot you are brewing to confuse me and get me to rule in your favor when you are the one whos ...
DauuX 2024-11-21 10:18 a.m.
quoting "chief justice enforcementbeyond" like he's the pope is crazy
acerxtroI've already given a ruling and you have already petitioned to the SC; considering the MTR is on the bottom ring of my priorities list. I have other cases to tend to(edited)
singhski 2024-11-21 01:33 p.m.
I haven’t petitioned
singhski 2024-11-21 01:34 p.m.
suspend the timer for providing relief in that case
singhskiI haven’t petitioned
acerxtro 2024-11-21 02:46 p.m.
Petition then
acerxtro 2024-11-21 02:46 p.m.
Because it seems like you just made the pot bigger
acerxtro 2024-11-21 02:46 p.m.
And added more ingredients
acerxtroPetition then
singhski 2024-11-21 02:47 p.m.
It would be inappropriate to do so now
acerxtro 2024-11-21 02:47 p.m.
Now is the best time to do so
acerxtro 2024-11-21 02:48 p.m.
I've recommended it, you said you would do it
acerxtro 2024-11-21 02:48 p.m.
You had me expedite my ruling so you can go to the SC
acerxtro 2024-11-21 02:48 p.m.
Obviously if we've spent weeks on this issue with briefs and briefs of information, there is no slam dunk
singhski 2024-11-21 02:49 p.m.
I intend to bring up these arguments in my petition--in certiorari, it would be improper to petition on issues the lower court hadn't meditated upon.
singhski 2024-11-21 02:49 p.m.
The argument is very different.
acerxtro 2024-11-21 02:49 p.m.
Why wasn't the argument included in one of the first 3 briefs
acerxtro 2024-11-21 02:49 p.m.
and motions
singhski 2024-11-21 02:49 p.m.
It's a shame. It's being brought up now.
acerxtro 2024-11-21 02:50 p.m.
Singhski…
acerxtro 2024-11-21 02:50 p.m.
I'll get to the motion whenever I can then
acerxtro 2024-11-21 02:50 p.m.
actually there is a need for expedition
singhski 2024-11-21 02:51 p.m.
Thank you.
acerxtro 2024-11-21 02:51 p.m.
because there is ordered relief
acerxtrobecause there is ordered relief
singhski 2024-11-21 02:52 p.m.
Just to be clear, the ruling would have to include something to rebut the presumption of at-will status.
singhski 2024-11-21 03:00 p.m.
The defense policy having provisions for for-cause terminations does not rebut the presumption of at-will status.
All that means is that there are provisions for terminating employees under certain conditions, but it does not automatically convert at-will employment into for-cause employment.
The mere existence of such provisions does not create a contractual right to continued employment or limit an employer's ability to terminate an employee without cause unless specific language or an explicit agreement is present to override the at-will presumption. You can look toBishop & Roth .
All that means is that there are provisions for terminating employees under certain conditions, but it does not automatically convert at-will employment into for-cause employment.
The mere existence of such provisions does not create a contractual right to continued employment or limit an employer's ability to terminate an employee without cause unless specific language or an explicit agreement is present to override the at-will presumption. You can look to
singhski 2024-11-21 03:03 p.m.
"The North Carolina Supreme Court has held that an enforceable expectation of continued public employment in that State can exist only if the employer by statute or contract, has actually granted some form of guarantee." SCOTUS affirmed North Carolina SC's decision in Bishop . Any good textualist would agree that employment is presumed to be at-will unless there is an explicit contractual or statutory provision to the contrary.(edited)
singhski 2024-11-21 03:06 p.m.
"the employee "held his position at the will and pleasure of the city" necessarily establishes that he had no property interest". Bishop axes property interests for employees hired at-will.
DauuX 2024-11-21 03:09 p.m.
cheers cus no one tried to suggest at will employment creates a property interest
Nicklaus 2024-11-21 04:30 p.m.
guys can we just agree to disagree, hug each other and dismiss this case
Nicklaus 2024-11-21 04:31 p.m.
thanks
singhski 2024-11-25 04:07 a.m.@acerxtro Hi, how long?(edited)
singhskiacerxtro 2024-11-25 09:04 a.m.
I am granting a 3 day stay on my previous ruling until I can view the motion.
@singhski @DauuX
acerxtroI am granting a 3 day stay on my previous ruling until I can view the motion. @singhski @DauuX
singhski 2024-11-25 09:05 a.m.
Thank you
singhski 2024-11-27 11:28 a.m.@acerxtro Tomorrow?
singhski 2024-11-28 11:15 a.m.@acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-28 11:26 a.m.
Definitely not Thanksgiving
acerxtro 2024-11-28 11:26 a.m.
The courts are closed and the court PCs are taped off
acerxtroDefinitely not Thanksgiving
singhski 2024-11-28 11:34 a.m.
You must have considered that
acerxtro 2024-11-29 04:59 p.m.
Yeah I have read the motion @singhski
acerxtro 2024-11-29 05:00 p.m.
I believe the pot analogy fits very well here
acerxtro 2024-11-29 05:00 p.m.
I maintain that a CCPI does exist and, as such, due process should have been given.
acerxtro 2024-11-29 05:01 p.m.
Motion denied, relief is to be completed
acerxtro 2024-11-29 05:01 p.m.
the court will not hear a motion to reconsider the motion to reconsider the verdict
acerxtroYeah I have read the motion @singhski
singhski 2024-11-29 05:04 p.m.
So he's not at-will?
singhski 2024-11-29 05:07 p.m.@acerxtro It would be insensitive for you not to put this on paper. The arguments are different.
acerxtroI believe the pot analogy fits very well here
DauuX 2024-11-29 08:00 p.m.
THANK GOODNESS
DauuX 2024-11-29 08:00 p.m.
for a SOUND ruling of this COURT
DauuX 2024-11-29 08:00 p.m.
(I have to battle the certiorari petition now.)
Nicklaus 2024-11-29 10:16 p.m.Belief perseverance (also known as conceptual conservatism) is maintaining a belief despite new information that firmly contradicts it.
Since rationality involves conceptual flexibility, belief perseverance is consistent with the view that human beings act at times in an irrational manner. Philosopher F.C.S. Schiller holds that belief persevera...
Singhski is actually biologically driven to HATE ALL OF YOU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance
Since rationality involves conceptual flexibility, belief perseverance is consistent with the view that human beings act at times in an irrational manner. Philosopher F.C.S. Schiller holds that belief persevera...
Nicklaus 2024-11-29 10:17 p.m.
He will win 
NicklausSinghski is actually biologically driven to HATE ALL OF YOU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance
DauuX 2024-11-30 08:17 a.m.
DauuX 2024-11-30 08:18 a.m.
sounds accurate
acerxtro 2024-11-30 11:13 a.m.
if singhski is a captain that goes down with his ship, it just so happens that his ship is the titanic
acerxtro 2024-12-04 01:15 a.m.
Hello @zrihem it has been like 16 days
acerxtro 2024-12-04 01:15 a.m.
I need a reason for the delay within 24 hours
acerxtro 2024-12-04 01:15 a.m.
or jail
acerxtro 2024-12-04 01:16 a.m.
the court is willing to construct payment plans for the financially needy
acerxtro 2024-12-04 01:16 a.m.
reminder of ordered relief
1. Declaratory judgment that the defendants deprived the plaintiff of their right to due process;
2. Declaratory judgment that defendant zrihem's action of blacklisting the plaintiff was done in retaliation, which transgressed the plaintiff's rights;
3. A permanent injunction for the defendants to remove the records of the plaintiff being discharged and blacklisted;
4. A permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from retaliating or discriminating on the plaintiff based on the existence and contents of this case;
5. A letter of apology written and signed by defendant zrihem, of no less than 150 words, published in the Mayflower National Guard’s public announcements channel, wherein Defendant zrihem will take blame and apologise for his defamatory and unlawful conduct, which shall not be generated by artificial intelligence; which shall be a genuine expression of apology. This letter shall not be deleted, removed, or otherwise modified after it has been posted;
6. $75,000 in punitive damages from defendant zrihem, to be paid to the plaintiff;
7. Attorney's fees and costs, as proposed to the court AND ACCEPTED by it;acerxtro 2024-12-04 04:02 a.m.
The court shall enter this statement into the record
acerxtroI need a reason for the delay within 24 hours
acerxtro 2024-12-04 04:06 a.m.
now 16 hours @zrihem
acerxtro 2024-12-04 04:08 a.m.
a statement is also required as to why you should not be held in contempt of court for that TERRIBLE statement made in this humble court server
zrihem 2024-12-04 05:16 a.m.
zrihem 2024-12-04 05:16 a.m.
Idk why you’re a judge you never get on Clark 
zrihem 2024-12-04 05:17 a.m.
Haven’t seen you on the Clark for ages
zrihem 2024-12-04 05:17 a.m.@@here
zrihem 2024-12-04 05:19 a.m.
If you want to take my rights away U can come and do it yourself..
zrihem 2024-12-04 05:20 a.m.
All I’m gonna say is I will not give up easily…
zrihem 2024-12-04 05:21 a.m.
Also not sure if you’re in the loop but Tdark99 left Clark completely thus this making it your personal problem.. not tdark’S
zrihem 2024-12-04 05:33 a.m.
try and take me down for something I didn’t do. Proceed with such action and I will have no other choice but to take the whole state down with me on this sinking ship
zrihem 2024-12-04 05:34 a.m.
My wealth is unmeasured and my capabilities are through the roof..
zrihem 2024-12-04 05:35 a.m.
I hold much of Clark county’s investment and I have my own Private military company along side other associates of mine….
zrihem 2024-12-04 05:36 a.m.
And I possess all synagogues if that’s relevant
DauuX 2024-12-04 08:36 a.m.
Shut the fuck up
DauuX 2024-12-04 08:37 a.m.
acerxtroreminder of ordered relief ``` 1. Declaratory judgment that the defendants deprived the plaintiff of their right to due process; 2. Declaratory judgment that defendant zrihem's act...
singhski 2024-12-04 11:52 a.m.
Remove no 5, it's compelled speech.
singhskiRemove no 5, it's compelled speech.
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:07 p.m.
why was this not argued against before
DauuXShut the fuck up
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:07 p.m.
Remain respectful, counselor
acerxtrowhy was this not argued against before
singhski 2024-12-04 12:07 p.m.
Why does it even exist?
singhski 2024-12-04 12:07 p.m.
better question
zrihemAlso not sure if you’re in the loop but Tdark99 left Clark completely thus this making it your personal problem.. not tdark’S
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:08 p.m.
confirm @singhski @DauuX
acerxtroRemain respectful, counselor
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:08 p.m.
Of course, apologies 
acerxtroconfirm @singhski @DauuX
singhski 2024-12-04 12:08 p.m.
yeah I don't know anything about Tdark's private business
singhski 2024-12-04 12:08 p.m.
up to Dauu to confirm
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:09 p.m.
I am pretty sure Mr Tdark is in the state, seeing that he just attended a criminal trial a week ago
singhski 2024-12-04 12:09 p.m.
or deny
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:09 p.m.state-of-mayflower-v-tdark99
acerxtroconfirm @singhski @DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:09 p.m.
I certainly know nothing of it
singhskiWhy does it even exist?
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:09 p.m.
response @DauuX
acerxtroresponse @DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:10 p.m.
It was originally meant to be part of the relief for libel
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:10 p.m.
As we did originally allege that
singhski 2024-12-04 12:10 p.m.
honestly this is more on you acerxtro
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:10 p.m.
It'd be a retraction of sorts
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:11 p.m.
And clearing up the department record
singhskihonestly this is more on you acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:11 p.m.
you have had how many days to contest
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:12 p.m.
any objection to removing it @DauuX
acerxtroany objection to removing it @DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:12 p.m.
Not really
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:13 p.m.
Ok cool Mr Zrihem no longer needs to do the apology letter
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:13 p.m.
But I insist on contempt for the rest
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:13 p.m.
I was just getting there
acerxtroyou have had how many days to contest
singhski 2024-12-04 12:13 p.m.
pretty much any judge worth his salt would abstain from ordering compelled speech
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:13 p.m.
it has been ordered time and time after before
singhski 2024-12-04 12:14 p.m.
when
acerxtroThe court shall enter this statement into the record
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:14 p.m.
Mr Zrihem will be found in direct criminal contempt for his disrespectful conduct towards the court as shown here
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:14 p.m.
You were being neglectful
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:14 p.m.
Also OG had a lot of that
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:14 p.m.
yep
singhski 2024-12-04 12:14 p.m.
OG
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:14 p.m.
Mr Zrihem will also be held in civil contempt for his failure to comply with any of the ordered relief
singhskiOG
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:15 p.m.
OG had some of the best lawyers and judges
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:15 p.m.
A lot of bad ones too obviously(edited)
zrihemAlso not sure if you’re in the loop but Tdark99 left Clark completely thus this making it your personal problem.. not tdark’S
singhski 2024-12-04 12:15 p.m.
Yeah I don't know what was going on here...
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:15 p.m.
But overall it was better than this..
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:15 p.m.
oh absolutely
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:15 p.m.
especially the antradz bot..
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:16 p.m.
I will determine the amounts for Mr Zrihem’s contempt later and how many counts I will charge him with
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:16 p.m.
Twenty-three.
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:16 p.m.
I will be fining him instead of sending him to jail
singhski 2024-12-04 12:16 p.m.
Can we not converse here and clutter the cluttered record further
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:16 p.m.
We will converse in my courtroom at my will(edited)
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:16 p.m.
singhski 2024-12-04 12:16 p.m.
if you wish
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:17 p.m.
you are appealing right @singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:17 p.m.
ya
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:17 p.m.
has a petition for a stay of the relief been attempted yet
singhski 2024-12-04 12:18 p.m.
no but i'll do that
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:18 p.m.
ok
singhski 2024-12-04 12:18 p.m.
i don't understand the reasoning behind your second ruling btw
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:18 p.m.
which
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:18 p.m.
We're waiting on the
singhski 2024-12-04 12:18 p.m.
if you could clarify
singhski 2024-12-04 12:18 p.m.
that
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:18 p.m.
Cert decision
singhski 2024-12-04 12:18 p.m.
will help with the appeal
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:19 p.m.
which ruling
singhski 2024-12-04 12:19 p.m.
on the motion to reconsider
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:19 p.m.
oh
singhski 2024-12-04 12:19 p.m.
you left me in the dark with that one
singhski 2024-12-04 12:19 p.m.
i guess you could say the tdark
singhski 2024-12-04 12:19 p.m.
LOL
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:19 p.m.
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:19 p.m.
Im pretty sure it just reattempts all of the stuff I already ruled on
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:20 p.m.
and I am confident in the original ruling
acerxtroIm pretty sure it just reattempts all of the stuff I already ruled on
singhski 2024-12-04 12:20 p.m.
not really the arguments are different
singhski 2024-12-04 12:20 p.m.
like completely different
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:20 p.m.
Basically im right ur wrong
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:20 p.m.
is it a slam dunk counselor
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:20 p.m.
I can hear the cauldron brewing
singhski 2024-12-04 12:20 p.m.
acer you were supposed to read it
singhski 2024-12-04 12:20 p.m.
i don't think you did
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:20 p.m.
I did
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:20 p.m.
oh I read it counselor
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:20 p.m.
And it brought nothing new
singhski 2024-12-04 12:20 p.m.
how did you end up rebuking the
singhski 2024-12-04 12:21 p.m.
at-will presumption
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:21 p.m.
Well its not at will
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:21 p.m.
yeah
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:21 p.m.
Because the policy says its not
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:21 p.m.
reasonable expectation to stay employed
singhski 2024-12-04 12:21 p.m.
where
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:21 p.m.
defense policy
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:21 p.m.
Thats the "more than unilateral expectation"
singhski 2024-12-04 12:21 p.m.
ya where
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:21 p.m.
discipline policy
singhski 2024-12-04 12:21 p.m.
dude i wasn't talking about that
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:21 p.m.
there’s like 3
singhskiya where
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:21 p.m.
It says you can be discharged for X, Y and Z
singhski 2024-12-04 12:22 p.m.
you can have a unilateral expectation whilst being at-will
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:22 p.m.
well
singhskiyou can have a unilateral expectation whilst being at-will
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:22 p.m.
yeah I said "more than"
DauuXIt says you can be discharged for X, Y and Z
singhski 2024-12-04 12:22 p.m.
that's wholly against the premise of Bishop v Woods
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:22 p.m.
if I say that you will not be fired unless you break the defense policy
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:23 p.m.
then I go and fire you for something else
singhski 2024-12-04 12:23 p.m.
chat be honest did you guys actually read those cases
singhski 2024-12-04 12:23 p.m.
or did you just read the casetext summary
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:23 p.m.
oh loudermill was completely read
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:23 p.m.
I know the justices’ dogs’ names
singhski 2024-12-04 12:23 p.m.
loudermill was a good read
singhskithat's wholly against the premise of Bishop v Woods
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:24 p.m.
well it really isnt
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:24 p.m.
girl you said he was terminated at will FOR insubordination
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:24 p.m.
and he couldve been terminated for insubordination
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:24 p.m.
sure he could've, but that means it wasnt "at will" but for a reason
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:24 p.m.@singhski would recommend letting the SC decide rather than a MTR
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:25 p.m.
usually I am able to be swayed to 1 side and rule alongside them
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:25 p.m.
but my toes are just touching the plaintiff’s side
singhski 2024-12-04 12:25 p.m.
sufficiency of claim of entitlement must be decided in reference to state law
singhski 2024-12-04 12:25 p.m.
-bishop
singhski 2024-12-04 12:26 p.m.
absent specific legal protections the presumption is at-will employment
singhskisufficiency of claim of entitlement must be decided in reference to state law
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:26 p.m.
some other cases also said it depends on the customs
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:26 p.m.
and contracts
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:27 p.m.
One of the cases you mentioned said policy or custom
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:29 p.m.@DauuX can you draft up amounts for Mr zrihem’s contempt
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:29 p.m.
Erm
singhski 2024-12-04 12:30 p.m.
had to get something from my car
DauuXsome other cases also said it depends on the customs
singhski 2024-12-04 12:30 p.m.
you mean Roth?
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:31 p.m.
Wasnt just Roth but maybe
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:31 p.m.
Ive read a few
singhski 2024-12-04 12:31 p.m.
I think it was Roth
singhski 2024-12-04 12:32 p.m.
either way they can't rest on a "mere subjective expectancy"
singhski 2024-12-04 12:32 p.m.
you'd have to provide evidence that those are the customs
singhski 2024-12-04 12:33 p.m.
the court didn't provide evidence of a mutual understanding that would elevate his employment beyond at-will status
singhskieither way they can't rest on a "mere subjective expectancy"
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:34 p.m.
yeah thats the whole point
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:34 p.m.
the Defense Policy said he wouldnt be discharged
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:34 p.m.
so the employer thought that
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:34 p.m.
We also thought that because we alleged it
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:34 p.m.
unless you want to tell me the employer was unaware of his policy
singhskiyou'd have to provide evidence that those are the customs
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:34 p.m.
we did subpoena that if I recall properly, the government hasnt complied
singhski 2024-12-04 12:35 p.m.
Correct me if I'm wrong, the DP doesn't say that he wouldn't be discharged? Doesn't it say that he would be discharged for certain infractions?
singhski 2024-12-04 12:35 p.m.
Unless it says "you won't be discharged UNLESS"
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:35 p.m.
already read the MTR but just skimming over:
just because someone breaks the policy doesn’t mean they forfeit their right to due process (if one exists)
just because someone breaks the policy doesn’t mean they forfeit their right to due process (if one exists)
singhskiCorrect me if I'm wrong, the DP doesn't say that he wouldn't be discharged? Doesn't it say that he would be discharged for certain infractions?
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:36 p.m.
Yes
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:36 p.m.
And as our SC has upheld recently (which is also a standard rule)
singhski 2024-12-04 12:36 p.m.
To which?
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:36 p.m.
"expressio unius est exclusio alterius"
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:37 p.m.
So if you list infractions for which one can be discharged, it means that it is just those infractions
singhskisufficiency of claim of entitlement must be decided in reference to state law
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:38 p.m.
Yes that is true, however, the reliance on state law stems from Roth
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:39 p.m.
And Roth specifically uses "such as state law" to indicate rules or understandings from "an independent source"
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:39 p.m.
I'd say the policy here is that
DauuXYes that is true, however, the reliance on state law stems from Roth
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:39 p.m.
And it is mentioned primarily because the benefits in Bishop were secured by state law
singhski 2024-12-04 12:40 p.m.
Expressio unius would apply if the policy explicitly excluded other grounds for termination, but without such language, the policy may be read as providing guidance rather than a binding guarantee of continued employment.
singhski 2024-12-04 12:40 p.m.
oops wifi
singhskiExpressio unius would apply if the policy explicitly excluded other grounds for termination, but without such language, the policy may be read as providing guidance rather than a b...
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:40 p.m.
No, expressio unius literally means excluding others by the mere expression of some(edited)
singhski 2024-12-04 12:40 p.m.
unless the policy establishes a contractual or statutory basis for an entitlement to continued service, the guardsman would still be considered an at-will employee under the law.
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:41 p.m.
I think it does, so did acer
singhski 2024-12-04 12:41 p.m.
The question still stands, does the policy establishes a clear contractual entitlement to continued employment or simply outlines potential grounds for disciplinary action?
singhski 2024-12-04 12:42 p.m.
does it guarantee continued employment, or does it leave open the possibility of termination at the discretion of the Major General in accordance with Principle #4?
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:42 p.m.
Expressio unius rule means the former
singhski 2024-12-04 12:42 p.m.
"guardsman may be discharged if deemed unfit for service by the Major General," suggests a degree of discretion which would then suggest at-will employment applies
singhski 2024-12-04 12:43 p.m.
It implies that termination is contingent on the judgment of the Major General
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:43 p.m.
But you must be deemed unfit for service
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:43 p.m.
Just as you must be deemed disobedient, and so on
DauuXBut you must be deemed unfit for service
singhski 2024-12-04 12:44 p.m.
Unfit for service is solely discretionary
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:44 p.m. 
singhski 2024-12-04 12:44 p.m.
there is no quantitative measure of being unfit
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:44 p.m.
"for any of the following reasons:"
singhski 2024-12-04 12:44 p.m.
nor is there a qualitative measure
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:44 p.m.
These are grounds
singhskithere is no quantitative measure of being unfit
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:44 p.m.
there literally are
singhski 2024-12-04 12:44 p.m.
He was terminated for being unfit for service
singhski 2024-12-04 12:44 p.m.
that is solely discretionary
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:44 p.m.
If you were deemed unfit because you were black, that'd be dealt with quickly
singhskiHe was terminated for being unfit for service
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:44 p.m.
but the question here isnt whether he was or was not unfit, but whether there had to be a reason for that discharge
DauuXIf you were deemed unfit because you were black, that'd be dealt with quickly
singhski 2024-12-04 12:45 p.m.
Correct, and that sort of understanding is compliant with the at-will employment doctrine. You can't be at-will'd for something illegal
singhski 2024-12-04 12:46 p.m.
the mere existence of grounds for discharge does not automatically create a constitutionally protected right to continued employment, especially when the decision to terminate is not tied to a rigid, fixed standard, but instead is left to the discretion of an officer.
singhski 2024-12-04 12:47 p.m.
while the policy specifies certain conditions under which a guardsman may be discharged, including "unfit for service," the fact that such a determination is made by the Major General leaves the termination open to subjective interpretation. This discretionary language suggests that the guardsman’s employment is still fundamentally at-will, because the decision to terminate remains within the unfettered discretion of the employer (the Major General), rather than being an automatic, contractually guaranteed action based on an objective standard.(edited)
singhski 2024-12-04 12:48 p.m.
sorry that was a long one
singhski 2024-12-04 12:49 p.m.
and this is an argument I have made in my petition & the MTR
Nicklaus 2024-12-04 04:13 p.m.
u guys talk more than my Spanish teacher
zrihem 2024-12-04 04:14 p.m.
can U charge me with Hate Crimes
Nicklaus 2024-12-04 04:15 p.m.
If singhski actually is right I'm gonna chuckle
acerxtro 2024-12-04 11:48 p.m.@zrihem You have been held in direct criminal contempt for 3 separate actions:
- Intentional disrespectful & discourteous behavior via calling the court a "bitch"
- $4,000
- Intentional mocking of this court & hooliganish behavior
- $3,500
- Intentional threats made to this court & to the state
- $3,500
You have been fined a total of$11,000 over these 3 charges of contempt.
I hope the amount signals that you need to comply with court orders, assuming you've already stated that you are rich and could easily pay any fines issued by this court.
If this conduct is repeated, I will not hesitate to max out the fines.
You have 3 days from the exact date of this message to make progress deemed acceptable by this court on the relief. (edited)
- Intentional disrespectful & discourteous behavior via calling the court a "bitch"
- $4,000
- Intentional mocking of this court & hooliganish behavior
- $3,500
- Intentional threats made to this court & to the state
- $3,500
You have been fined a total of
I hope the amount signals that you need to comply with court orders, assuming you've already stated that you are rich and could easily pay any fines issued by this court.
If this conduct is repeated, I will not hesitate to max out the fines.
acerxtro 2024-12-04 11:50 p.m.
Whenever you next join the game, you will have exactly 30 minutes to pay your citations.
I will be gracious and allow a total of1 hour for you to do this instead.
If an error happens to exist with the code and whenever you join, if your citations are mysteriously overdue, I will expunge any arrest record incurred.
I will be gracious and allow a total of
If an error happens to exist with the code and whenever you join, if your citations are mysteriously overdue, I will expunge any arrest record incurred.
zrihem 2024-12-05 12:12 a.m.
So U want cash or debit
acerxtrozrihem 2024-12-05 12:15 a.m.
Guess who Made the supreme Court Building
zrihem 2024-12-05 12:15 a.m.
You guys owe me everything.
zrihem 2024-12-05 12:17 a.m.
I have yet to be payed a somme of 153,999 UC$
zrihem 2024-12-05 12:17 a.m.
Paying for my workers, materials and other expenses.
zrihem 2024-12-05 12:18 a.m.
State has not granted me such
zrihem 2024-12-05 12:18 a.m.
alsoo I cannot pay the fine it wont let me lol
zrihemalsoo I cannot pay the fine it wont let me lol
acerxtro 2024-12-05 12:19 a.m.
oh that feature must be broken then
acerxtro 2024-12-05 12:20 a.m.
Record yourself dropping $11,000 off the map @zrihem
acerxtro 2024-12-05 12:20 a.m.
if the game tries to give you a warrant ill remove it
zrihem 2024-12-05 12:23 a.m.
before
zrihem 2024-12-05 12:23 a.m.
OK im just gonna donate it to you im not waiting for it to despawn after i drop
zrihem 2024-12-05 12:24 a.m.
nvm i cannot give it to you.
acerxtro 2024-12-05 12:25 a.m.
the court will consider the fine paid
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:42 a.m.
got rid of it
acerxtrothe court will consider the fine paid
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:43 a.m.
Also im fine with giving out money but Im not appologizing at all to a dead person
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:43 a.m.
dead man dont talk (tdark99)
zrihemAlso im fine with giving out money but Im not appologizing at all to a dead person
acerxtro 2024-12-05 01:43 a.m.
we have removed that part where you have to apologize
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:43 a.m.
Ok what were the other stuff
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:43 a.m.
just the $$$
acerxtro 2024-12-05 01:43 a.m.
1. Declaratory judgment that the defendants deprived the plaintiff of their right to due process;
2. Declaratory judgment that defendant zrihem's action of blacklisting the plaintiff was done in retaliation, which transgressed the plaintiff's rights;
3. A permanent injunction for the defendants to remove the records of the plaintiff being discharged and blacklisted;
4. A permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from retaliating or discriminating on the plaintiff based on the existence and contents of this case;
5. removed
6. $75,000 in punitive damages from defendant zrihem, to be paid to the plaintiff;
7. Attorney's fees and costs, as proposed to the court AND ACCEPTED by it;acerxtro 2024-12-05 01:43 a.m.
yea
acerxtro 2024-12-05 01:43 a.m.
you left the MNG right
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:44 a.m.
When this whole thing was going on I resigned as major general
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:44 a.m.
so yeah even if I wanted to blacklist him I COULDNT
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:44 a.m.
LOlll.
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:44 a.m.
Id like for the tdark murder case to be reopened as retaliation of these damages
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:45 a.m.
other than that I will pay the expenses
acerxtro 2024-12-05 01:45 a.m.
ok so 3 & 4 will go to MNG
zrihemId like for the tdark murder case to be reopened as retaliation of these damages
acerxtro 2024-12-05 01:45 a.m.
mr tdark has already been found guilty
acerxtro 2024-12-05 01:45 a.m.
he is awaiting sentencing
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:45 a.m.
see thats why I kicked him out... i knew he was guilty
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:45 a.m.
we had no procedure written for discharges
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:46 a.m.
depleted command
zrihemsee thats why I kicked him out... i knew he was guilty
acerxtro 2024-12-05 01:46 a.m.
was he discharged for shooting some guy stealing a car
acerxtro 2024-12-05 01:46 a.m.
or for another reason
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:47 a.m.
No he shot and killed an MSP officer holding a radar gun
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:47 a.m.
in front of fort standish
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:47 a.m.
gates
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:48 a.m.
msp officer was seen making his way towards the guardsman and proceed to still execute him
acerxtro 2024-12-05 01:48 a.m.
:/
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:48 a.m.
no shots were fired except his, theres a clip out there but I dont possess it
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:48 a.m.
not sure if theres forgiveness in the fact that he just thought it was a gun
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:48 a.m.
not sure what the legalities of that is
acerxtro``` 1. Declaratory judgment that the defendants deprived the plaintiff of their right to due process; 2. Declaratory judgment that defendant zrihem's action of blacklisting the pla...
acerxtro 2024-12-05 02:39 a.m.@DauuX I will draft up an order to the major gen. tomorrow
DauuX 2024-12-05 04:08 a.m.
Ok 
Nicklaus 2024-12-05 08:01 a.m.
LOLOLOLOLO
Nicklaus 2024-12-05 08:01 a.m.@singhski dms
singhski 2024-12-05 11:10 a.m.@DauuX could you specify the capacities
singhski 2024-12-05 11:10 a.m.
for each tort
singhskiDauuX 2024-12-05 11:17 a.m.
Whats the issue
DauuX 2024-12-05 11:17 a.m.
Because you dont just get to file motion after motion when this case is essentially over
DauuX 2024-12-05 11:19 a.m.
Im pretty sure the complaint states them
DauuXIm pretty sure the complaint states them
singhski 2024-12-05 12:00 p.m.
It doesn’t which is why I’m confused
singhskiIt doesn’t which is why I’m confused
DauuX 2024-12-05 12:12 p.m.
R u sure girl
DauuX 2024-12-05 12:12 p.m.
Weren't you the one accusing us of not reading things fully
singhski 2024-12-05 12:15 p.m.
oh you did
Nicklaus 2024-12-05 04:29 p.m.
its not in the party section
Nicklaus 2024-12-05 04:29 p.m.
dauux is a freak.
DauuX 2024-12-05 06:32 p.m.
Certified
shah 2024-12-06 09:28 a.m.
can this be archived @acerxtro ?
acerxtro 2024-12-06 12:02 p.m.
not yet @shah
acerxtro 2024-12-06 12:02 p.m.
am waiting for relief still
acerxtro``` 1. Declaratory judgment that the defendants deprived the plaintiff of their right to due process; 2. Declaratory judgment that defendant zrihem's action of blacklisting the pla...
acerxtro 2024-12-09 07:53 p.m.@DauuX draft order to maj gen. for #3 and #4
acerxtro 2024-12-09 07:53 p.m.
also I am waiving your attorney fees as relief because no proposal was given within a reasonable amount of time
acerxtro 2024-12-14 12:06 a.m.@DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-14 12:14 a.m.
Oh I'm sorry
DauuX 2024-12-14 12:14 a.m.
Had mocks this week and completely forgot
DauuX 2024-12-14 12:14 a.m.
I'll get to it today
acerxtro 2024-12-16 01:21 a.m.@DauuX
acerxtro 2024-12-16 01:22 a.m.
you have 2 days or no relief
DauuX 2024-12-16 01:50 p.m.
Yes sorry
DauuX 2024-12-16 01:50 p.m.
Any format or will a text message suffice? @acerxtro
DauuXAny format or will a text message suffice? @acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-16 03:34 p.m.
block format here
acerxtro 2024-12-16 03:34 p.m.
and I’ll format it
DauuX 2024-12-16 04:13 p.m.
You are hereby ORDERED and COMMANDED to:
1. Locate any public, external and internal employment records belonging to the Mayflower National Guard containing information regarding Plaintiff’s discharge of the twenty-eighth of August, 2024, and subsequent blacklist on or about the fourth of September, 2024;
2. Remove, erase, or, if impossible, otherwise modify these records to clearly and unambiguously state that the action was unlawful and is therefore void;
3. Suspend and terminate any pending, ongoing and/or future investigation(s) into the conduct which led to Plaintiff’s discharge on the twenty-eighth of August, 2024;
4. Ensure that no one person or unit retaliates, discriminates against or treats Plaintiff unfairly for bringing this civil case before ac court of law;
5. Take any action necessary in the future to redress any damage suffered by Plaintiff as a result of actions described above.DauuX 2024-12-16 04:13 p.m.@acerxtro
DauuX 2024-12-16 04:13 p.m.
Let me know if the wording anywhere is sloppy and needs changing
DauuX 2024-12-16 04:13 p.m.
I'm sure the unusual way of putting the dates seems lovely
DauuX 2024-12-16 04:14 p.m.
before a court of law*
acerxtro 2024-12-23 03:06 a.m.
Ok
DauuX``` You are hereby ORDERED and COMMANDED to: 1. Locate any public, external and internal employment records belonging to the Mayflower National Guard containing information regardi...
acerxtro 2024-12-23 03:15 a.m.
acerxtro 2024-12-23 03:16 a.m.@DauuX @singhski @Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2024-12-23 10:43 a.m.
jurisdiction has been divested to scom
Nicklausjurisdiction has been divested to scom
DauuX 2024-12-23 12:49 p.m.
fake news
acerxtro 2024-12-23 12:54 p.m.
actually true news
DauuX``` You are hereby ORDERED and COMMANDED to: 1. Locate any public, external and internal employment records belonging to the Mayflower National Guard containing information regardi...
acerxtro 2024-12-23 12:55 p.m.
Court order shall be put on hold
acerxtroCourt order shall be put on hold
DauuX 2024-12-23 12:56 p.m.
as far as I know there isnt a stay
DauuX 2024-12-23 12:56 p.m.
and I complied a week ago.
DauuX 2024-12-23 12:56 p.m.
please force this corrupt government to respect the law
DauuXas far as I know there isnt a stay
acerxtro 2024-12-23 12:57 p.m.
yeah I know
acerxtro 2024-12-23 12:57 p.m.
but its likely inevitable(edited)
Nicklaus 2024-12-23 01:25 p.m.
u probably still can but
Nicklaus 2024-12-23 01:25 p.m.
it’s like probably bad
acerxtro 2024-12-23 07:25 p.m.
the sc will just issue a stay right after
acerxtro 2024-12-23 07:25 p.m.
I will let them review in peace
acerxtro used /transcript
clerkFlow Bot2025-01-17 12:10 a.m.
Creating transcript..
clerkFlow Bot2025-01-17 12:10 a.m.
https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1329678726383927409/1329679282561351811 Successfully created transcript.
Exported 1908 messages